The Life Challenges Podcast
Modern-day issues from a Biblical perspective.
The Life Challenges Podcast
What’s Trending? Anti-natalism, Brain Dead Woman to Carry Baby to Term, Medical History from Drug Creation for Sick Baby, and Abortion Disinformation Wins the Pulitzer
What happens when humans try to play God? The recent bombing of a fertility clinic in Southern California by an "anti-natalist" – someone opposed to human reproduction – reveals a disturbing philosophy gaining traction. These individuals believe bringing children into the world is fundamentally wrong, with many advocating for the eventual extinction of humanity.
Behind this radical position lies a godless worldview where humans, not their Creator, determine the value of life. As Pastor Bob Fleischmann observes, "When people are godless, they become god themselves—they become the arbiters of right and wrong and who lives and who dies." This core insight connects seemingly disparate headlines we examine: from anti-natalism to a controversial Georgia case of a brain-dead pregnant woman kept on life support, to the miraculous development of a CRISPR-based treatment for an infant with a rare genetic disorder.
Media bias features prominently in our discussion, particularly regarding ProPublica winning a Pulitzer Prize for reporting that allegedly linked pro-life laws to negative health outcomes—reporting our panel argues contained significant factual errors. This raises crucial questions about journalism as advocacy versus objective truth-seeking, and the responsibility Christians bear in consuming and sharing information critically.
Throughout our conversation, the contrast becomes clear: worldviews centered on human autonomy inevitably create impossible burdens, placing responsibility for life-and-death decisions on individuals ill-equipped to bear them. Meanwhile, scientific breakthroughs like personalized genetic treatments demonstrate both human ingenuity and the temptation to cross ethical boundaries when God is removed from the equation.
Have you noticed how difficult ethical decisions become when detached from a biblical framework? Join us as we navigate these complex waters and discover how faith provides the compass we desperately need in today's moral landscape. Share your thoughts or questions at lifechallengesus or email podcast@christianliferesources.com.
SHOW NOTES:
Find strength and courage in your faith at this year’s FEARLESS FAITH Conference. Inspired by Joshua 1:9, “Be strong and courageous,” join us for presentations on navigating life’s storms, understanding God’s peace, and engaging in crucial conversations about euthanasia, anorexia, abortion, prenatal genetic testing, and more. Hear powerful journeys of faith through loss and hope. Don’t miss this empowering event! $50 in person or $40 virtual. Register now: https://christianliferesources.com/resources/events/2025-conference/
On today's episode….
Speaker 2:I think you have to remember that when people are godless, they become god themselves, they become the arbiters of right and wrong and who lives and who dies. And so this fellow, in his zeal, just determined that there were going to be deaths, whether it was embryo deaths, people at the clinic and ultimately himself. And you know, antinatalism is a concern, but the bigger concern is the anti-God, the not knowing about God, not knowing about Christ, not knowing about eternity.
Speaker 3:That becomes the issue and life resources. People today face many opportunities and struggles when it comes to issues of life and death, marriage and family, health and science. We're here to bring a fresh biblical perspective to these issues and more. Join us now for Life Challenges.
Speaker 1:Hi and welcome back. I'm Krista Potratz and I'm here today with Pastors Bob Fleischman and Jeff Samuelson, and today we have the June current event episode that we are bringing to you, and I am pretty excited about this episode. I think we have a lot of fun stuff to talk about here. Interesting things in the news. The first article I want to bring attention to is one that you found, bob on this, I guess maybe growing trend of anti-natalism. Can you give us a little explanation as to what that is?
Speaker 2:First of all, you pretty much get the idea that any kind of crazy notion seems to always be simmering out there somewhere. But when we had a bombing of the fertility clinic in Southern California, it found out that the guy was called an antinatalist, which means he's against having children. And I don't know if it was a pendulum swing to the Elon Musk pushing for more children, but it was basically a suicide terrorist type event that he bombed a clinic and it looks like they were able to save the embryos that were within the clinic and stuff. But it brought antinatalism to the surface. And so when you do a deep dive into it and study it, there were stories that had been done on it here and there in the past but just never got attention. Well, now it's got attention and when I first read the story it reminded me of the old anti-population arguments that we're going to outuse our resources and so forth.
Speaker 2:But with antinatalism you have to understand their ultimate goal is no one has children, period that in time the human race ceases to exist. They have a variety of kind of like nuances to it, but like one of the people said, you know, I don't regret the child I have, but I don't want more children and I don't want her to have any children. And of course we've been concerned about the whole population explosion thing is kind of imploded now, and now we're going to start experiencing negative population growth and that's going up as a concern, and now you have a group that's probably excited about it.
Speaker 4:Yeah, it's interesting that there seem to be kind of two motives or streams going through there. One is the more environmental kind of attitude of human beings on this planet are a mistake, so we need fewer of them and eventually none of them. The other seems to be a bit more a good word for it escapes me, but they're taking more of a compassionate kind of view in the sense of well, any child who comes into the world is going to have to face suffering, and they didn't get a choice in that, and it's just unfair for us to impose that on anyone, that they would come into a world and a life where they might experience things less than joy, and therefore it's wrong for me to make that decision for a child and therefore we shouldn't be doing that anymore, which of course ends up in exactly the same place of no more children. It's really very much a godless worldview.
Speaker 4:It presumes that there is no higher power involved in creating life really at any stage, and that means there's no one who has authority over life and no one who gives life meaning. God is completely out of the picture as far as they're concerned, and so therefore, all power, all agency, all responsibility rests on you as an individual, because I'm the one making the decisions about my life, and I'm the only one who can make a decision about whether I bring more life into the world. The irony of that, of course, is that all that power and responsibility you've taken away from God, you end up putting on yourself as a burden, because now, oh yeah, it's all on me.
Speaker 2:Some of those people almost lamented that in a moment of weakness we had a child. You know, it was like they're carrying it with them and yeah, I like that analogy. That's like seen as a burden for them. It's a peculiar perspective but it's very consistent with kind of the life ethic that's been going on. You get to the point where you can terminate unborn life. You begin to, you know, even fertility clinics and IVF and all that kind of stuff. You feel like you become the master of not just your fate, but kind of one of the cornerstones of the antinatalist perspective is the poor child has no voice in this. You know, we somehow usurp the child's authority by bringing the child into existence. It's kind of their mentality and it becomes a little bit circular. Definitely godless fits into the save the planet, the environment type approach and assisted suicide, terminating life, that's no longer worth living. I think it's always important to remember on a lot of that stuff Is that what seems, you know, nutty? Now Give it 10 years and then come back and take a look.
Speaker 1:I think the interesting thing about the article that you shared Was that it was parents talking about it, and I think they specifically got a group of parents too that felt this way about their children and their children's life and everything too. Because I think sometimes, you know, we associate okay people like not wanting to have kids or not maybe caring about the planet as people that don't have kids or can't have kids or something like that. So to see a group of parents who think, oh man, I really wish I hadn't had a child. Or they said, you know, in the article I mean the one lady said, okay, it probably maybe isn't the worst thing in the whole world if her daughter someday has children, but she would really not ever want to be a grandparent. We hear that and that just sounds so sad and I mean maybe to us even kind of bizarre too.
Speaker 4:Yeah, and these parents in the article they talk about how they're. Oh, you know, I love my kids. As much as they say that, how can you imagine that those children growing up, even reaching adulthood and knowing that their parents thought it was a mistake that they existed at all?
Speaker 1:And that their parents, too are telling them do what you want, but man, I really don't want you to have any children. I mean, like that's kind of a crazy message too, I think.
Speaker 2:You know, about 40 years ago Wisconsin Public Television had done a story on these pregnancy counseling centers and they came in with cameras hidden in a purse and they came into one of our centers and fortunately the counselor, everybody at the center was stellar. I mean, everything was good, fortunately the counselor, everybody at the center was stellar. I mean everything was good. But in this PBS story this woman had her baby and so the baby is bouncing on the knee of the grandma, the girl's mother, and the reporter said well, now that you've got your granddaughter it was a granddaughter, you know, you can hold her. Do you feel you know any differently about it? No, I still think she should have had an abortion and I remember we were just all the volunteer board at the time and we all just kind of like looked in amazement at it.
Speaker 2:But that's what I thought of when I was reading this article. They act as if they care for their children and they want you to think that they do, but fundamentally it was a mistake. They didn't want to have children and I think maybe one of the things that has to be on the back of our minds is what does this translate into? If it's like I suggest and that is what's a crazy idea today becomes more mainstream in 10 years. We've got to ask ourselves what does this start to look like in 10 years?
Speaker 2:And first of all, I'm always stunned over how they resort to terrorist activities in order to accomplish agenda. I think you have to remember that when people are godless, they become God themselves. They become the arbiters of right and wrong and who lives and who dies. And so this fellow, in his zeal, just determined that there were going to be deaths, whether it was embryo deaths, people at the clinic and ultimately himself. And you know, antinatalism is a concern, but the bigger concern is the anti-God, the not knowing about God, not knowing about Christ, not knowing about eternity. That becomes the issue.
Speaker 1:Well, there is another interesting story that has attracted, I think, a lot of mainstream media attention too, with a woman in Georgia who was, I guess, determined brain dead and was pregnant that she needed to be on life support and they had to try to save the baby. I think I summarized that pretty well, but any additional information there?
Speaker 4:Well, one of the news hooks for this is that there I'm going to quote from the AP article to make sure I get the language right she's been on life support for three months to let the fetus grow enough to be delivered a move Her family says a hospital told them was required under the state's strict anti-abortion law. And that's part of the news hook for a lot of the media that this is because of the anti-abortion law that this is happening, abortion law that this is happening. One of the ironies, of course, is that when you get down deeper into the story, you find out that the family hasn't actually asked for the mom to be taken off of life support.
Speaker 4:It's just like so what does that have to do with anything, but that's kind of their hook.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I mean, I guess I too was thinking like oh okay, is there some like legal battle going on where the family is trying to? No, you know, the family wants her to be on life support. What they call legacy media is such a very anti-life mindset.
Speaker 2:So that for them it means like next to nothing that we're talking about an unborn child here. It's like some violation of a right, violation of autonomy use of the body, of autonomy use of the body. Now there's some deep roots. You know that. You know going back to, you know the permission you give for what can be done to your body. You know after your death, you know like they still like to ask the family if you want to organ donate and that kind of stuff. So they try to make a big deal out of the autonomy issues, the right to privacy, all of those kinds of things.
Speaker 2:But really the story is you could see how a Christian news agency would flip this around where, for the sake of a life, they're keeping a body. You know working to bring this child to the point that it can live outside of the womb. It sounds wonderful, it sounds noble. It has to be hard on the family. I realize that it has to be hard on the family. I realize that. But it's just a matter of perspective. And I'll tell you, especially in the last few years, I make it a point to listen to different kinds of media and you just see how almost an agenda trumps the real facts of the story. Like you said, jeff, the way that they hook you in makes it sound like there's this big legal battle going on and really the battle is taking place within the reporters. I mean, they're the ones who want you to feel a certain way.
Speaker 4:Well, one of the interesting things about the article this is a general rule when you're reading something that deals with anything kind of controversial, search for what's not mentioned.
Speaker 4:And the thing that's not mentioned at all in this article and it's a pretty long one is the father of the child. It doesn't mention whether he had a relationship with the mom, if they were married, if this was just a kind of a, you know, one-time thing and there's no relationship or whatever. And it certainly doesn't mention his attitude towards the child, which I think you know personally as a news reader, would be something I'd really want to know about. You know, does he want this child, you know? Is he happy about this or is he one of those guys who's like well, I don't want that responsibility. We also never even hear from the doctors or the hospital because privacy laws keep them from commenting on the case. So the only person that we're really hearing from is the woman's mother speaking for the family, and I'm not saying there's anything wrong in what she's saying or suggesting she's lying or anything like that, but that's very limited sourcing, really, for knowing what's really going on.
Speaker 2:Well, and I think one of the lessons there is when you begin to read with a critical eye, you recognize that almost every news story to to some degree is an editorial. It reflects the opinion of the reporter or the writer and it's going to have the flavor of where they're coming from. And what Jeff said is a brilliant point Keep an eye out what is not in there. If you were the reporter, what are the things you would do? I mean, there's certain family members that you would be talking to and I think the child's father would certainly be like front of the line and not interviewed at all, and probably because he held an opinion contrary to what the reporter wanted. Because the reporter is trying to emphasize now what do I think is going on here? I think this is Georgia. I think chances are pretty good.
Speaker 2:One of those doctors involved with this is not comfortable ending the life of the unborn child and I think the doctor says you know we've got this law and we got to follow it. He invokes it. You know, if you've worked in these kinds of environments, you know that sometimes the bias of the people involved the decision makers, the medical people they're the ones who will take the action, because they could have just as well have said she's gone, we could disconnect the ventilator, we could ignore the unborn child, but they didn't. And I don't think it's because they were running scared. That may have been the interpretation by a disgruntled nurse, a disgruntled doctor, but no, I think you know.
Speaker 1:The fact that Georgia has one of these laws tells you the nature of the people living down there, that a lot of them feel very strongly that unborn life is a life of interesting things, I think when the mother went in to or was determined brain dead that the child was eight weeks old, it was not very far along point of view too, if the baby can continue growing. I mean, we don't even know too. Would we release this episode like if the story will still be, I mean even going on?
Speaker 3:and stuff too.
Speaker 1:I mean, the hope was that they could get the baby, I think till August at least, when the baby would be possibly 22 weeks old, and then do a C-section for that. But just you know, it's just interesting from a medical and scientific perspective if this will even just work, so to speak.
Speaker 2:I mean there were near the end of the story when they kind of talked to other ethicists and so forth. One of them had said removing the woman's mechanical ventilation or other support would not constitute an abortion. Continued treatment is not legally required. So in other words, that's what I'm saying is that someone's making a story here that isn't really there.
Speaker 1:I was kind of wondering that too. Yeah, it isn't really there. I was kind of wondering that too. Like I mean, you know as much as I too, personally, am for life and you know against abortion, I do wonder, like if there is just okay, it's just their time to go, type of thing, like is this, you know, because the sad reality is that there are pregnant women that pass away and so does their child, and is this just you know, a situation like that?
Speaker 2:We don't know, but I think you know from a Christian ethical perspective we don't say you know the exception clause. When we talk about abortion, the goal is always to preserve life. The goal isn't to pick your favorite life or anything like that. You pick the life that you can save. So your goal is to save the life you can. They cannot save the mother's life in this one, and you know I've been involved in some of these decisions with families. It's pretty, pretty rare that you're in one of these type of situations and I've been involved with one or two of these, you know, in the last four decades. But it's pretty rare that the mother has died. But they want to sustain her life to protect the child, and the fact that they could do it is pretty remarkable in and of itself.
Speaker 1:Yeah, Well, moving along, here we have another article that was found from the Washington Post, and this one was talking about, I believe, how they used CRISPR to make a drug for a child, and, jeff, do you want to maybe describe a little bit of that?
Speaker 4:Well, the headline they put on it was how the Race to Invent a Drug for One Sick Baby Made Medical History. And it focuses on a baby, kj Muldoon, and he was born in Philadelphia and as soon as he was born they discovered. Well, shortly after he was born, they discovered that he had an extremely rare and severe genetic disorder, which I'm not going to try pronouncing, they just call it CPS1. And so they said, okay, what are we going to do? Because in most cases, children with this, they don't survive past infancy.
Speaker 4:But science, medical science, has advanced to such an extent now that they saw an opportunity here, an opportunity to put to work all these things that they've learned about genetic technology and CRISPR, which they use to kind of rewrite genes on the fly, and all this stuff.
Speaker 4:And they said, well, maybe we can create a drug that will maybe not completely heal the child but will fix him enough so that he can have a more normal life. And I'm sure, from the parent's point of view, it took a long time, but it was remarkable. It was within the space of months that they got this thing done. They gave it to the little boy and he's improved dramatically, you know, of course it remains to be seen whether this is going to last. You know whether it's going to be a permanent change. You know whether there are other things that are going to come along down the pike water. But it's just amazing and you know, if I had written the article I would have had trouble leaving out, thank God. Or you know, praise the Lord for this, or you know, praise the Lord for this. But it's just quite amazing what they are able to do with this technology, which in so many cases it's tempting to look at it and just see the dangers of it. But here it is being done for something really amazingly good.
Speaker 2:You know, part of the challenge of CRISPR is you need to identify exactly what's happening, what's going on in DNA and which of the combinations are being affected directly. And it is not simple. I mean, if you remember that it took years to map out the human genome that they have to find in all of that very, very long sequence of molecules. They have to find in there exactly where they do it. And that's problem number one. When you read the New England Journal of Medical article on this, that was problem number one is to correctly identify, because oftentimes when you've got a problem, there's more at work than just that problem, and so but that was kind of like incredible event number one was that they were able to really focus in on it. Then, with CRISPR, they're able to go in and actually do a repair, and I think you're going to find stories about this person, this child, 20 years from now. I mean, I think that they hit it and because part of the fantastic part of the story is that they were able to do it, for it only affects I believe one out of every 1.3 million births a year are affected by this and yet they were able to find it there and they feel that the technique they used to identify the problem area was the big deal that can be used now in other areas.
Speaker 2:And now this is all great news, and I'd like, like Jeff said someplace in the article, we would have written thank God. But the flip side is, leave it to sinful people to take a really, really cool and good thing and really, really mess it up. And so imagine now that you've got this ability, and so it's only a matter of time before you refine it. And I'll put in my little plug for AI. I think AI is going to be incredibly helpful for finding more cures like this in other areas. But watch, and so you know, if you remember the old, old TV series, the Six Million Dollar man, you know we can make him better, we can make him stronger, we can make him faster. That's almost more temptation than any of us can handle.
Speaker 1:I mean, it's just a little tweak, just a little stood out for me is that, as awesome as this was, there was, it seemed, to me at least, like an underlying pessimism with it or just like this like, oh, we did this all for one sick child, we used all these labor hours like just for this one child. It didn't necessarily come out and say it in a very negative way in the article, but it just was something that I kind of was kind of picked up or rubbed me a little bit the wrong way.
Speaker 4:Yeah, it's natural to read this and ask well, how much was this one baby's life worth? To a certain extent, as Christians, we say we say, well, you can't put a price tag on it. But there's also the practical matter of stewardship. It's, like you know, spending millions upon millions of dollars. It is interesting that somewhere in toward the end of the article there was um just a statement of from one of the doctors or scientists involves like yeah, you know, we, we can't put a price tag on this, which is a way of saying it's so astronomically high we can't even try to pin it down. Um, yeah, if you got to ask, we can't help you.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 4:Um, and you know it's. It's just you know so much, you know, and you say, well, yeah, that's just way out of line with with the benefit that you're, you're getting here, you know, because that money could be used to help so many other people. But, of course, from the scientific point of view, you prove the concept with this one case and that means you've got, you know, the building blocks for the rest of the cases. And as with so many other types of technology, you know, we see it even, just you know, with plain electronics, the hobbyist millionaire buys, you know, spends $15,000. On today, 15 years from now, the guy on the street in a lower class neighborhood is going to be getting for $100, because just, with time, things are perfected, things become cheaper and that's the way this will probably go. And it's just, you know, really interesting.
Speaker 2:It's exactly that, though. It was a proof of concept and it was the breakthrough that they were looking for in CRISPR, because they've done a lot. You know, they've been trying to use it in macular degeneration and heart issues and so forth, but this it shows that it really does work. So, plus two, it'll be interesting, in light of all the budget cuts and that kind of stuff going on the big splash you're going to see with stories like this, because there is going to still be money spent on research and the fact that you can say we're no longer just experimenting now with CRISPR. We actually have proof of concept, it does work, and that's going to be a big deal.
Speaker 1:I anticipate it's going to get a lot more attention in the years to come. Well, we have a few more minutes here to talk about the ProPublica winning a Pulitzer Prize. Jeff, can you explain this story to us?
Speaker 4:Yeah, this is the kind of thing that I think most of us probably don't pay too much attention to in the first place, which is the awarding of the Pulitzer Prizes.
Speaker 4:We pretty much only pay attention if it's our own local paper or something the one that we read all the time or if it's a story that matters to us. But this one drew a lot of attention in pro-life circles because the Pulitzer was awarded to the I think it's just an online journal ProPublica for a series they did last year, basically linking states with strong pro-life laws to negative outcomes, including death, for women who had complications with their pregnancies. For anybody who is very much pro-abortion, they were great articles because they proved the point these laws are really bad for women. The problem was that the articles were just plain wrong. They connected things that weren't connected. They cherry picked their facts and ignored the things that were not conducive to their theory or whatever, but they came to the conclusion that they had set out to come to and that people wanted them to come to, which was that these states with pro-life laws are anti-woman. Is that these states with pro-life laws are anti-woman? And even though they say they care about pregnant women and their children.
Speaker 2:They're really not Otherwise they wouldn't have these kinds of laws, one of the things the media likes to portray itself as, and correct me on this if I'm wrong, jeff, but they call themselves the fourth arm, right of government. The fourth- yeah.
Speaker 2:Yeah, and they tend to. First of all, you got to remember, it's a title they take for themselves, so I'm always suspicious of that. But again, you know, I think it's important to remember that to some degree it's advocacy. And I've just been watching a series on Amazon Prime on the Civil War and Abraham Lincoln and how Lincoln leveraged friendly media to make a case for him to get ready to release the Emancipation Proclamation, that kind of stuff. But it was understanding the media not so much as an objective source of authority on all news but as a vehicle of advocacy. And I think what happened is well, this happened the other day.
Speaker 2:I was listening to NPR and Jake Tappert was on and he was talking about the book he co-wrote on President Biden's cognitive skills during the tail end of his presidency. And it was on NPR. Of course NPR is feeling beat up by the Trump administration and so forth, but when he gets to the end, tapper goes. It further exposed us in the legacy media to credibility issues. Because, you know, the conservative media recognized those cognitive problems were there. Conservative media recognized those cognitive problems were there and they were reporting on it and we weren't.
Speaker 2:And why is that? Because media is advocacy. It is not objective. When I watch news, I watch four different news sources a day. I bounce around between ABC News, fox News, newsmax, and then the one I've lately have grown to kind of like is News Nation and it kind of ranks if you ever look at those tables, who's kind of in the middle and what I like about it is that they aren't looking for every opportunity to throw the president under the bus but at the same time they're not looking for every opportunity to venerate him. When I was watching some of the other conservative ones, you'd think the guy should have been made the pope.
Speaker 3:You know I mean the way they carried on.
Speaker 2:Well. That's, I think, what was going on here. It reminds me of what happens in Hollywood with the Academy Awards. You know a lot of people, you know a big deal of the Academy Awards. You do realize that the Academy, the people who make and star in the movies, they're voting on their own product. This isn't this objective thing. So a lot of times you know you'll get a movie that really advocates, you know, for a gay position on things, or something like that, and then all of a sudden that wins. It doesn't even have to be that good of a movie, but the point is is that they're advocating something.
Speaker 1:That's what I think was going on here, Like we got to, you know, get the information to the people. And I mean it was just. It was amusing to me that there was that kind of approach to it or just that type of, I guess, defense towards it that, oh, we just needed to, you know, get this information out quickly as possible, because people needed to know how bad it had gotten.
Speaker 4:Yeah, Now the old standard for journalism in America, which wasn't really followed universally for as long a period as we would like. But the old standard was it's okay if you have a slant Certain newspapers for sure, this was the Republican paper, this was the Democratic paper, things like that. But even if you wrote with a slant, you were supposed to make sure that everything you wrote was true. Maybe you'd leave some things out, maybe you'd present things in such a way to make this guy look better or that woman to look worse, or whatever, but you at least felt an obligation to make sure that the things you reported as fact were actually fact. That's what we're not seeing cases like this story, the one the Pulitzer.
Speaker 4:There are far too many people who have a bias, whether they're in journalism or politics or wherever they come across a story, and it's just too good to check. You know, oh boy, this says just the right thing. You know, I always wanted to believe this was true of that person. So I'm going to go with this article without bothering to find out. Okay, is that actually reasonable? Is that the proper interpretation of the events? All those kinds of things? I'll just say this is something that Christians should not only be on the lookout for in the media that they consume, they also really need to be on the lookout for it in terms of the media that they forward, that they pass on to other people. Because as Christians, we're in the business of truth and we want to make sure that anything we're passing on, whether it's religious or not, is something that is true. And if we're not confident of that because we know the sources, then we should be a lot more cautious.
Speaker 2:Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan was always giving credit for making the statement. You know that you're entitled to your opinion but you're not entitled to your own facts, and that actually was a phrase coined by a newspaper. It was an editorial written by a newspaper and it's important to remember. That is that everyone's got a bias. We have a bias, and you need to be honest about your own bias and call it out. But at the same time, like even the way Krista explained how they kind of you know, just kind of said well, you know, we're trying to meet deadlines, we're trying to get things done. Well then, you just kind of violated your oath as a news source, I think, because you still you can't publish fiction and present it like fact.
Speaker 1:Yeah Well, thank you both. It makes me excited for what the month of June will hold, as we report on our current events next month for July. But thank you to all of our listeners for joining us and if you have any questions on any of these, please reach out to us at lifechallengesus. If you enjoyed this podcast, please share it with people and we look forward to having you back next time. Bye.
Speaker 3:Thank you for joining us for this episode of the Life Challenges podcast from Christian Life Resources. Please consider subscribing to this podcast, giving us a review wherever you access it and sharing it with friends. We're sure you have questions on today's topic or other life issues. Our goal is to help you through these tough topics and we want you to know we're here to help. You can submit your questions, as well as comments or suggestions for future episodes, at lifechallengesus or email us at podcast at christianliferesourcescom. In addition to the podcasts, we include other valuable information at lifechallengesus, so be sure to check it out. For more about our parent organization, please visit christLifeResourcescom. May God give you wisdom, love, strength and peace in Christ for every life challenge.
