The Life Challenges Podcast
Modern-day issues from a Biblical perspective.
The Life Challenges Podcast
What’s Trending? Big Beautiful Bill, Role of Adoption, Infant Pain, and Lab Grown Sperm and Egg
When science and policy push the boundaries of God's design, where do Christians stand? In this thought-provoking exploration of today's most challenging bioethical issues, we dive deep into recent developments that force us to confront fundamental questions about life, reproduction, and human dignity.
The conversation begins with an examination of the recent legislation defunding Planned Parenthood and its potential ramifications. While the organization claims this could force closure of one-third of their clinics, our hosts unpack the complex political dynamics at play as states may step in to replace federal funding. What might this "predicament designed to create change" ultimately mean for abortion access and women's healthcare services across America?
We then tackle a puzzling disconnect in American perspectives on adoption. Though 86% of Americans view adoption favorably, the statistics are stark: approximately 50 abortions occur for every adoption. Our hosts draw from decades of experience in pregnancy care to explain why women facing unplanned pregnancies rarely consider adoption, despite its obvious life-affirming benefits. The psychological and emotional barriers prove far more complex than many realize.
Perhaps most disturbing is our examination of emerging reproductive technologies, particularly lab-grown human eggs and sperm. As scientists in Japan claim to be just "seven years away" from creating viable human sex cells in labs, we ask the critical question few are willing to address: should we be doing this at all? When technology enables us to circumvent God's design for human reproduction, what ethical guardrails remain?
The discussion concludes with sobering research suggesting premature infants may experience pain more intensely than previously thought due to their inability to cognitively process it. This raises profound questions about fetal pain perception during abortion procedures and challenges us to consider the full humanity of the unborn.
Join us for this essential conversation that goes beyond political talking points to examine the heart of what it means to honor life in a culture increasingly comfortable with redefining humanity according to convenience and desire. Have questions? Reach us at lifechallengesus where you can submit your thoughts or suggest future topics.
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 Saturday, September 13, at Kettle Moraine Lutheran High School in Jackson, Wisconsin, 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. Yeah, that's a really good thing, but when it's me and my pregnancy, yeah, I don.
Paul Snamiska:We're here to bring a fresh biblical perspective to these issues and more. Join us now for Life Challenges.
Christa Potratz:Hi and welcome back. I'm Krista Potratz and I'm here today with Pastors Bob Fleischman and Jeff Samuelson, and today we're going to talk about our August current events, and we have a good list of current events to talk about, the things that are going on the first we'll talk about is Jeff. Can you fill us in a little bit on what's going on with the defunding Planned Parenthood?
Jeff Samelson:We're recording this in mid-July. We'll see if anything much has changed by the beginning of August, but so far it seems pretty certain of a few things. On July 3rd, the Senate passed the reconciled version of what Donald Trump was calling the Big, beautiful Bill, and then he signed it on July 4th. And included in this, along with many other things, was a provision that removed all federal funding for Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood. So basically saying no federal money at all is going to go to Planned Parenthood. Previously there had been provisions that would keep federal money from paying for abortions through Medicaid and therefore keeping that money from Planned Parenthood, but this was the first time. They simply said no, none of it's going at all to Planned Parenthood in any way. And that's the reality. That should be the one that actually works, because money is fungible. If you're giving $100,000 to this clinic and you're saying, but don't use it for this thing, it's still going to end up supporting that thing, because you're just going to move your money around in order to make sure things get paid for or whatever. So that was the big thing.
Jeff Samelson:One thing that pro-lifers were a little less happy about the original bill that had passed. The House banned or removed that funding for a period of 10 years. Apparently, it was a provision of the reconciliation process that they were using to get this through the Senate that it had to be changed to just one year. So that raises some questions. Are they going to be able to keep that provision in next year and in future years when it comes up? Will this be in any way something that's permanent, or is this going to be something that has to be fought again every year? So lots of big questions there, particularly with Ludd being up in the air about the Republican control of the House and the Senate and so forth.
Jeff Samelson:A few things should be made clear, though that this in and of itself doesn't cripple or destroy Planned Parenthood. In states where the state legislature is overwhelmingly pro-abortion, they can decide okay, well, we're going to make up what the federal government isn't giving them, we're going to fund these organizations. There are private organizations that, of course, could step up, or even individuals, and replace that funding, but it is interesting that Planned Parenthood itself has said that they could lose or be forced to close one third of their clinics as a result of this. Now, I suspect that a fair amount of that was scaremongering, trying to tell everybody oh no, you can't do this because it's going to hurt us so much.
Jeff Samelson:tell everybody oh no, you can't do this because it's going to hurt us so much. But I actually read something just this morning that suggested that there might be some reality to that, because apparently their finances are not quite as healthy as they might want them to be and that they are, in fact, quite dependent on federal funding. So that would be a good thing as far as we're concerned, because Planned Parenthood is the number one purveyor of abortions in the United States and does a lot of other stuff that we're not happy about as well.
Jeff Samelson:It presented a unique dilemma. I'll give you a little bit different flavor of it. There's a requirement that you know I think it's on the county level that states are supposed to be also providing for indigent services like some testing, some pap smears, sdi testing, birth control, provide birth control services and so forth. And even though the big beautiful bill never says the words Planned Parenthood, it clearly says that any agency getting over $800,000 and if they're involved in abortion they're defunded. So it effectively defunds them and that's a good thing. I mean I'm very good.
Jeff Samelson:I find that the Trump administration likes to use a method of creating change by forcing you into a predicament. Whether we're talking about tariffs or whatever else is going on, the predicament is supposed to create a positive change. That's going to hurt a lot right now, but later on it will become more natural, like in the area of tariffs Now. I used to work for a steel foundry many years ago in the lab and I remember how we were just being beat up over foreign steel, and so eventually the steel foundry I worked for went out of business, and not surprising. And now, of course, between tariffs and everything, there's this big push to try to bring steel production back to the United States, america's largest private provider of services that take the life of unborn children. They also have created this dilemma of how are counties going to be able to still meet their obligation to the indigent?
Jeff Samelson:And so I can see why people are panicking. I can see why states are saying well then, we're going to fund it and everything. The beauty of it is, I believe, when push comes to shove, even the most liberal states are going to finally say we don't have an endless pot of gold here On the county level. We'll fund STD testing, we'll fund pap smears, we may even fund birth control, but it's just too politically divisive to fund abortions on the more intimate state level. So I think this is going to be a technique that's going to push counties to be a little bit more imaginative. If Planned Parenthood wants to stick to their guns and stay in the abortion business, they're just out. It's time for them to move on. They've become obsolete. So I think that that's kind of like a grand plan and all this.
Jeff Samelson:I didn't read all thousand pages of the big, beautiful bill, which I never liked that terminology, but I did some summary work on it and I've always even though I haven't been in the steel industry in 45, 50 years, I still follow what kind of goes on in that industry and I see the same thing happening. It's trying to create a predicament so that it forces ingenuity to solve it, and I think that that's a very good thing and in the process we're going to save some lives. The Hyde Amendment always was prohibiting money going for these purposes and liberals have always found a way to circumvent it. And this big beautiful bill, I think, just cut that one off.
Christa Potratz:It's hard to imagine though kind of like you were saying too that this will be the end of Planned Parenthood.
Jeff Samelson:We've seen them, too, kind of move into other spaces as well, offering different hormones and things in the transgender area, and so it will just be interesting to see what happens a more libertarian or constitutionalist bent are going to be hopeful that something like this is also just starting to get the federal government out of the business of paying for things that the federal government was never designed to be paying for, and that would be a good thing. I think many people would agree if this is just the first step in that direction and helping us being more of a federal type of system that we were originally designed to be, which brings up an interesting little sidelight which I don't know got a whole lot of attention. So Donald Trump signed the legislation on the 4th of July, which was a Friday. Next business day, it was Monday, the 7th.
Jeff Samelson:On that day, two Planned Parenthood groups I think Massachusetts and Utah filed suit in a federal court in Massachusetts asking for an injunction. They got from the federal judge there Within hours. There was no opinion. The judge simply issued a temporary restraining order saying that the administration has to continue paying for all of these things that the law has just said they cannot pay for. And that is just such a constitutional travesty. Courts cannot tell the executive to spend money that the legislature has not actually given them authority to spend. That's not the way it works and that's not the way the judicial system is supposed to work either. If it doesn't get overturned immediately, it's just going to blow up in some way or another.
Jeff Samelson:But it just indicates how existential this is to certain people with a certain political bent on things, and that makes it's worth paying attention to, or continuing to pay attention to it and not just thinking, oh, we won, that's it you know I was thinking of Jeff's political science background when I was watching the debate going on between the big beautiful bill and the House of Representatives and I went over to the Senate and how the Senate has a different set of priorities than the House of Representatives when it deals with this House of Representatives. It's supposedly perhaps the closest representative to the demographics of your state, whereas the Senate gets two reps. Whether your state is made up of many different cultures and attitudes, you just have two reps. And I always thought it was part of the genius of the way the Constitution is structured and the checks and balances and so forth. But as they were going back and forth and then hearing Jeff comment about getting the federal government out of funding all these things, that's one of the things that's going to be.
Jeff Samelson:A benefit is that I think when these issues come back to the state to be dealt with and then get it down on the county level, when it gets to that level, it gets close enough now that now you have a real say.
Jeff Samelson:So now you can show up at your meeting. You can say I don't want this, I don't want this in my school district, I don't want this in my county. I don't want you can do that, whereas everything you were hoping for in the House of Representatives bill got turned around or undone or modified in the Senate version and you have no say you can on the big election of your senators. But it's part of the complexity of how the system works. So I think anytime we can bring these issues back into our communities, especially when they're so volatile, like abortion. So I think anytime we can bring these issues back into our communities, especially when they're so volatile, like abortion, and I mean even other things that we get into, whether it be marriage, gay marriage or porn stores and stuff like that, I think you get those on the community level. I think you have a better chance of getting your voice known.
Christa Potratz:Yeah, well, it'll be interesting to see how everything plays out. Another article, another topic that we wanted to talk about was the role of adoption and women's pregnancy-making decision. Jeff, can you tell us a little bit about that?
Jeff Samelson:Well, this was prompted by a long article that was published just within the last few weeks in a law journal. It was titled Informing Choice the Role of Adoption in Women's Pregnancy Decision Making. It's interesting because it takes a close and detailed and well-researched with statistics and surveys and things like that approach to the question of why is it that adoption is not the option that pregnant women are choosing as much, and how does that relate to, statistically, to abortion, the choice to abort a child, and why is that? And the third big part of the paper is well, what can legislatures and such do about this? You know what's the political response there and that's that's not so much what.
Jeff Samelson:What interested me, but it was the um. You know the talk of adoption. I mean, we are pro-adoption here very much so, uh, and the um I after Dobbs, there were lots of people saying, well, we think it just makes sense that um adoption levels are going to go up a lot after that because women who are not able to get abortions are going to place their children for adoption and haven't been seeing that so much, uh, and we we'd like to see more of it, but there's still a lot of children that are losing their lives to abortion. In fact, the rate of abortions to adoptions in the United States is currently about 50 abortions to every one adoption.
Christa Potratz:Wow.
Jeff Samelson:And that's despite the fact that 86% of Americans report a favorable to extremely favorable view of adoption. But from the perspective of women with unexpected pregnancies, adoption is, generally speaking, a non-option. Very few women consider, much less choose, adoption districts from. Five years ago, just shy of 20,000 infants were placed for private domestic non-step-parent adoption, in contrast to at least 930,000 abortions.
Jeff Samelson:Yeah, I mean it's—and the crazy thing is is it's never changed. We've been in the pregnancy care business for a long time now and we knew early on that you can sit down with a woman coming in pregnant and if you talk to her about adoption she would rather abort her child than to imagine somebody adopting her child. And our experience has been on a practical level it was almost kind of like a surge in responsibility, like I could never trust somebody else to do that, so I'd rather have that child, abort it. And of course, by their thinking is you know we'll abort the child before there's any cognizant understanding of what's happening. And then you know we relieve the child of potential problems. We make things you know easier for everybody by their thinking and, of course, the child of potential problems. We make things easier for everybody by their thinking. And of course, the child has to die.
Jeff Samelson:In the article that Jeff had linked they were talking about how people will raise questions about. Well, talking about adoption doesn't relieve the mother of the stress and turmoil of carrying the pregnancy all the way through and so forth. My experience on a very practical level is that they don't think that way. That's not the way they think. They think in the moment. And in the moment I'm pregnant. At this time I'm pregnant. I didn't want to be pregnant, I wasn't figuring on being pregnant, I don't want the pregnancy to continue.
Jeff Samelson:When you're arguing for adoption and we try everything we can but when you make the case for adoption, what they're hearing is the pregnancy continues, you're carrying the baby. Everything that they came in with a mindset of being opposed to. And so I think you know I thought the study was great, it was a good paper, a fascinating paper. But I do think it challenges us to kind of deal with the real issues at hand, and that is somehow they need to be more greatly incentivized to carry the pregnancy through with somebody who wants to adopt and I know there are plenty of people out there to adopt because we hear from them a lot but how do you give them the incentive to do it?
Jeff Samelson:Some other of the statistics despite three quarters of Americans having positive views on adoption, only one sixth of American women of childbearing age reported that they would make such a choice. Of American women of childbearing age reported that they would make such a choice. So it's in the abstract. Thinking about other people, it's like, oh yeah, that's a really good thing. But when it's me and my pregnancy, yeah, I don't think I could do that. And the article discusses what are some of the reasons why that is. Some of it is inaccurate information. Women think, oh well, if I place my child for adoption, then I have no choice, no control, I'll never have a chance to connect with the child again. They have very wrong ideas about how it works. They might feel that, well, once I do that, I'm coerced, which is no longer the case. And they can address external things like oh, if abortion is available as an option, well then, that's a major figure there.
Jeff Samelson:There is still a stigma for a lot of people on adoptions like, oh, you gave up your baby, you must have been in really bad shape, you must have been pretty confident, you couldn't be a good mother, and they don't want that kind of stigma, which shouldn't be there in the first place, but it's there Increasingly now. There's a social pressure to if you're going to bear the child, to be the parent. You know there's like there's something wrong if you're not going to do that. Sometimes people get the message from their family Well, you have this baby, don't expect any help from us. Well, you have this baby, don't expect any help from us. And there are trusted professionals who might very well be saying no, no, that's not what you want to do, that's not a good thing there.
Jeff Samelson:And then of course, there are the internal considerations Pretty much what Bob was talking about. I'm going through a lot of distress right now with this pregnancy and the long-term thing of adoption. That doesn't sound like it's going to relieve my distress. And then there's that sense of well, what's going to be best for the child? Don't I know what's best for a child? How could I send him to somebody else and have that happen? So there's a lot in the article and it's interesting and if you have an interest in adoption, particularly adoption policy and such, you'd probably find it worth a read.
Jeff Samelson:It kind of inspired me to again explore how we deal with the topic as an organization, because there is for the sake of the child who loses a life if there's an abortion. I'd like to see if we could more critically examine how to help this, because the numbers were, I mean, it is a staggering statistic 50 to 1. And how tragic.
Christa Potratz:Yeah, another topic that we wanted to talk about was the lab-grown sperm and eggs, and I think this was an article that was maybe Japanese scientists that were talking about how far they think they are away from growing these sperm and eggs in the lab.
Jeff Samelson:Well, I think first of all, remember what they're talking about. You know we've gone the cycle of surrogate parenting. We've gone. You know we're IVF. This is like one step beyond. Now we're talking about not involving a male and a female, but actually bringing everything down to its what they would call totipotent level that would allow finding the necessary elements in stem cells that you can bring the combination to result in life.
Jeff Samelson:There were all sorts of things about the story that struck me Like. First of all, at Osaka University, the professor said I think we're seven years away. Every time I see that I always giggle, because you know how we talk numerology in the Bible. You know, like seven or ten, ten's a number of completeness. It's a little bit like this Whenever I see the number seven and ten in ethics, it always means we don't have the foggiest idea when this is going to happen. You know, because 7 is forever. Did they say that seven years ago? Do we know?
Jeff Samelson:When you look at some of the quandaries that are going to be brought up, first of all, think about the benefits. This is what they tell you. The benefit of this is same-sex couples. They can have a child. A single parent can have a child. You combine this with the artificial womb, a man can have a child. I mean, it's got all of these possibilities. Almost all of them support a perverted view of the family, not a biblical view of the family, but support a perverted view of the family.
Jeff Samelson:But as I read it and this did not come out of the article I've been reading through the book of Leviticus, which tells you how badly I need excitement in my life, because Leviticus is a tough read.
Jeff Samelson:You're reading all the regulations and I'm reading all this and you get through the sexual sins in Leviticus where you're not supposed to sleep with a close family blood relative and all of those kinds of things, and generally the logic has been there's just problems with that.
Jeff Samelson:Now, one of the things that they hinted at could be a problem, a practical problem not even they don't call it an ethical problem, but a practical problem is what are the offspring going to look like, four generations down the road? Because if I can't and I'm going to preface this by telling everybody I do not have a sister, so but if I were to copulate with my sister, and it raises the possibility of profound birth defects or birth defects coming on down the road. What do you think is going to happen if I go the only thing closer and that's essentially to copulate with yourself? What do you think is going to happen down the line when you've extracted basically your male and female elements in procreation out of your own system and that was part of the design of God and being fruitful and multiplying and so forth, and this whole thing is designed to circumvent, is designed to circumvent.
Jeff Samelson:It's funny because when I read it it's kind of like is there any other possible way I could look at everything God instructed and say let's do the opposite. And this is getting pretty close.
Jeff Samelson:It was interesting that the opening line of the article that talked about this had the interesting verb Scientists are just a few years from creating viable human sex cells in the lab, creating as though they are making something from scratch, when in fact all they're doing is working with the powers and potentialities that God, the real creator, put into cells and DNA from the very beginning. But they want to play God and, like with so many things, it's the old problem of seemingly only being concerned with can we do this, when they should first be asking should we do this? Is this good, is this right, is this smart? And, as you so well expressed, this is messing with things that we, as Christians, and really all humans, should be profoundly uncomfortable with having anybody mess with. The line has been crossed. It's in the rearview mirror. We hoped there'd be some way to bring us back at some point, but they're barreling ahead.
Jeff Samelson:And I've wondered is the solution to just encourage everybody out there in Life Challenges podcast land to get on your ethics boards and kind of put a stop to this? No, I don't think that that's the solution. I've thought about what I think is the real solution here and because I've wrestled with this for a long time and that is when you've got people who have gone into this we can do anything we want. And, of course, if you're living for the world, I get it. I can make the logical connections. I see what—let's experiment, let's try If we're living for this world. But if you understand your Christianity, if you're more than a thimbleful depth to it, you recognize that this is not all there is to life. Our entire existence is to be glorifying God.
Jeff Samelson:So, ultimately, how do you handle where the ethical train has so passed your station already? It's way down the line. How do you handle it? You handle it with the gospel. You try to connect people again with an understanding of how you came into existence, why you continue to exist. Like Jeff said at the beginning, we're recording this in mid creation of woman. How that's supposed to be understood, all that kind of stuff. When you start tying all of that together. It's incredible how far we've gotten off the track, and when you're so off the track, your reality is no reality at all. You're just looking at a big giant fantasy land that all disintegrates, and I think, christians, the only way you finally stop it is you do what we've been called to do from the very beginning. Talk about Jesus.
Christa Potratz:I mean, I think I, you know, just look at it too, as it's like you're taking God's perfect design with man and woman and creating new life. And then it's, like you know, it's like a kid, you know, mom and dad has maybe started something. Okay, like I want to do it now. Like you know, I want, know it's like a kid, you know, mom and dad has maybe started something. Okay, like I want to do it now. Like I, you know, I want to, I want to, it's my turn, and even though, like it's already kind of done, you just you're trying to do it now, just in a different way, and it's, I mean, it's just it's not the way it got intended.
Jeff Samelson:Reminds me of an old joke, which I'm not remembering completely so I probably won't tell it so well, but it's basically that scientists have or this group of scientists have decided that they have figured out the process, that they know enough about how evolution happened and everything like that that they can create life on their own. They've figured out how, and so they invite God for a showdown and say, okay, well, you know, if you can do it, we can too. And he agrees, okay, let's do that. So he says go ahead, what do you need? And they say, okay, well, first we're going to take some dirt. And God says wait, where are you getting the dirt from? The idea being that he created the dirt. They're not starting from nothing, they're still working with something that he created. And yeah, just reminds me of that.
Jeff Samelson:Go back to Exodus, Read when Moses was sent to Pharaoh to let the people go, and it kind of reminded me a little bit of the joke. You know, the idea is Pharaoh brings out his magicians and so, you know, he kind of replicates a couple of these things and then all of a sudden we kind of get beyond the ability of the magicians and it seemed deliberate. But my point is is that Pharaoh had hardened his heart and demonstrated that at every turn. Pharaoh had hardened his heart and demonstrated that at every turn. When you read all of the things, everything that's involved with this it's called an IVG process as opposed to IVF, Everything involved with the IVG process In vitro gametogenesis yes, that's it Very good, I practiced that.
Jeff Samelson:And that's what it is. But if you read everything involved with it, it's almost kind of like man is playing the role of Pharaoh. My heart is hardened. You tell me I can't do this. I'm doing this. You tell me I should do it this way. I'm going to do it that way. I mean, it's like everything is just outright rebellion and at some point somebody's going to have to put their foot down. The other thing if you want to throw an ethical wrench into all of this, just remember if your sphere of influence is your community, your county, your state, maybe even your federal government, but it doesn't extend to Japan, china, wherever they want to work on this stuff. They're just going to keep plowing ahead in those areas. So you do what you can do. And what you can do is, you know, connect people with God and let it go from there.
Jeff Samelson:Yeah, one of the scariest things in this article was not so much about what they are capable of or expect to soon be capable of, but I can't remember who it was who made the comment, but it was somebody who was talking about well, yeah, we're not sure if we should do this, we're not sure if we should do that or whatever, but basically was comfortable. Well, it depends on what society is comfortable with A never changing mark, yeah, and it's like yeah, that's not an ethical standard, that's just yeah, we'll do whatever is permitted, whatever is possible.
Jeff Samelson:Yeah, and that's not comforting at all.
Christa Potratz:Well, the final thing we wanted to talk about today was an article that Bob had found on prenatal infants feeling pain, and I think they maybe have discovered that they do feel pain, but maybe they don't realize that it's pain and just the ethical you know findings with that.
Jeff Samelson:Well, and the article dealt with preemies. So we're talking about prematurely born infants, and when a child is prematurely born, you know, at different stages, they're basically saying there seems to be the presence of pain, but their level of cognition, their level of understanding it, translating it, is different. And I think when I wrote the little explanation note on it I even said we've been talking about this for years, about unborn children experiencing pain, and of course everyone's always taken some sort of solace that they don't understand it as they would if they were born. I thought the article was kind of interesting in that they suggested that it might actually be worse. It might be a worse acknowledgement because they don't have the cognitive skills to compartmentalize, to classify, to do all that, and I've often felt that way.
Jeff Samelson:I mean it's kind of like fear. There are things that you're afraid of and then, as you begin to understand it, you might still fear it but it might turn into more like respect, like electricity. I remember the first time a neighbor was helping us build a room in our basement when I was a kid and he accidentally touched the metal rule to the two screws on the electrical outlet and it sparks and the power went out, it blew the breaker and it terrified me, and then, after a while, he began to teach me how it worked, and so your fear becomes respect, but you're still kind of fearful.
Jeff Samelson:Well, at its base level it might even be more torturous of what we do to children through an abortion and premature children yeah, what I related that to is, like you know, I, I I have been blessed that so far in my life I have never extreme experienced the most extreme forms of pain.
Jeff Samelson:But if you ever have had pain so severe, or you've observed someone, particularly someone you love, with pain so severe that you're no longer able to engage your brain to deal with it, which is, you know, and on that pain scale, when you're getting into the eight, nine, 10, there there's no ability to process, you're, you're just feeling the pain.
Jeff Samelson:That's the only thing on your mind and you're, you're not able to compartmentalize it, you're not able to process it and say, oh well, this is going to go away soon, or this is only happening because of this, or once that pain medication kicks in, then I'll be okay, you're not able to do that. It is existentially upsetting and therefore, how cruel it is to inflict that on another human being, to do that without any way of relieving that or anything like that. And if that is indeed the case, that these tiny children inside the womb have the full capability of feeling the pain but have no capability of properly processing it, then that, as you said, bob, that makes it even worse. That's torturous, yeah, and if you knew that it was happening said Bob, that makes it even worse.
Jeff Samelson:That's torturous, yeah, and if you knew that it was happening to a neighbor, you would do something about it. And it is happening to a neighbor.
Christa Potratz:Thank you both for the discussion today and we thank all of our listeners, too, for joining us, and if you have any questions on any of these topics at all, you can reach us at lifechallengesus. And please, if you enjoyed this episode, share the podcast. We are currently in the top 25% of all podcasts.
Jeff Samelson:In the United States. We're in the top 25.
Christa Potratz:In the United States. Yep, that's correct, and I just had seen yesterday that we have published over 200 episodes, 201 to be exact. Anyway, thank you to all of our listeners for everything and we look forward to having you back next time. Thanks a lot.
Paul Snamiska:Bye 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 christianliferesourcescom. May God give you wisdom, love, strength and peace in Christ for every life challenge.
