What’s Trending? Xenotransplantation, IVF, Maternal Health, and Measles Outbreak

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Robert Fleischmann (00:00):
on today's episode, transplantation of well
, this is actually the arenacalled xenotransplantation,
which is cross-speciestransplantation presents its
natural challenges.
First of all, you've got theorgan rejection and so forth
which, by the way, you have evenwithin same-species
transplantation, like if you geta human kidney from somebody

(00:21):
else.
Rejection is always a problemand stuff, but it's a real
problem with cross-species.
But secondly, you've also gotdesign issues.
The way God designed a kidneyfor an animal and the way God
designed it for a human are twodifferent ones.

Paul Snamiska (00:38):
Welcome to the Life Challenges podcast from
Christian Life Resources.
People today face manyopportunities and struggles when
it comes to issues of life anddeath, marriage and family,
health and science.
We're here to bring a freshbiblical perspective to these
issues and more.
Join us now for Life Challenges.

Christa Potratz (01:05):
Hi and welcome back.
I'm Krista Potratz and I'm heretoday with Pastors Bob
Fleischman and Jeff Samuelson,and today we are going to tackle
our March current events.
The first topic that we wantedto talk about was the recent
executive order that Trump hassigned to expand access to IVF.

(01:27):
So, jeff, can you fill us in alittle bit about what that all
entails?

Jeff Samelson (01:41):
But it is still pretty significant.
It's an executive order thatcharges the guy in charge of
these things at the White Houseto submit policy recommendations
on protecting IVF access andaggressively reducing
out-of-pocket and health plancosts for IVF and says basically
they've got to produce all thisplan within 90 days.

(02:01):
Plan within 90 days and it istouted as something that is good
for families that want morekids, good for reducing the
costs of the process.
It's even good for increasingfertility rates here within the
United States.

Just a question why make it an executive order?
What is maybe the appeal ofthat, versus putting like a bill
forth or just that like goingthrough other channels?

Oh, that's.

Is that not a good question?

No, no, that's a great question.
It's just one of those thingsthat, well, I'll give you the
simple answer.
But it's actually a much longerand involved thing, having to do
with Congress giving up most ofits rights and powers and
abilities over the last 50 or 60years or whatever.
But basically what it is isit's easier for a president to
say, okay, this is what I'mgoing to do with the authority

(02:55):
that I have as the chiefexecutive, but I'm not going to
go to the trouble of trying toconvince Congress that this is
something that they need toenact a law about or that they
need to provide funding for orwhatever.
And there is a lot that withinthe executive branch that can be
done on these things, although,I mean, you asking this brings

(03:15):
up good points like how much canit really accomplish?
And there is a limit to that,unfortunately.
Things like the ACA, theObamacare Act and things like
that that entrusted a lot moreauthority within the executive
branch when it comes to healthmatters, health insurance and
who pays for what, and thingslike that within the unelected

(03:35):
bureaucracy and not withinCongress.

I see a lot of Elon Musk in this one because
if you've ever read the bio onMusk, he's got all of these
children I can't remember howmany he has now.

I think 13 as of you know, recent.

Right, yeah, and someone had just.
I just read the other day thatsomeone wants another one, but
he's very big on big familiesand so forth, but I believe
nearly all of his children comethrough surrogates and IVF and
so that's what I mean.
It doesn't seem like somethingthat would have naturally come
up on Trump's radar, but there'sa lot that we have been happy

(04:17):
for, you know, likeunderstanding correctly about
gender and some pro-life stuffthat the president's done about
gender and some pro-life stuffthat the president's done.
This one I'm not comfortablewith.
Every child born is a blessing,whether it's come to us through
surrogates or IVFs and so forth, but that doesn't mean that
those are always the safest andthe best way to approach it.

(04:39):
But that doesn't seem to be amatter of concern for the
administration in this regard.
So I'm not happy with it, butthe strategy is working.

He's coming out with so many executive orders.
It's hard.
It tries to come off as beingpro-family right, you know,
giving access to IVF but from alife issue standpoint, we've
talked about things that haveraised concerns with that.

But if we were to cast this in a really
positive light, there is alegitimate concern.
The fertility rate is belowreplacement level.
So we have an infertility issuein the United States.
So you know, hypotheticallythis would have more citizens to
be born, more taxpayers.
So in a sense that would begood.
But also the idea is that Ithink it represents an effort of

(05:44):
trying to get the governmentout of the bedroom on some
things.
But the problem is that it's alittle bit of a shotgun approach
.
It's pursuing something withoutunderstanding the full
ramifications of it and like,for example, if the majority of
created embryos were notdestroyed in a typical IVF

(06:07):
procedure, I'd probably embracethis for one reason or another,
help the infertile couples andso forth.
But that's not reality.
Reality is that somewherebetween 70% and 80% of the
embryos created to initiate theprocess is still lost in order
to get one child in your arms,and I think most people, if they
thought that through, would notlive comfortably with those

(06:30):
odds.

There are so many things that we would just say
what's really good is for us toeliminate regulations and, just
you know, free people up to actwithout having to deal with this
, and that this from thegovernment that slows them down
and such.
This is an area where, aspro-lifers, we'd actually like
to have tighter regulation sothat there is less of the
wastage of unborn life.

(06:52):
If it was put in so that thesethings would not be happening in
that way, well then that we'dwelcome.
But what this is likely to endup in if it ends up in anything
is actually looseningrestrictions and making it
easier and then adding costs oneverybody, because if you end up
saying, well, people's healthplans have to cover the IVF,

(07:14):
then that means everybody'spremiums are going to go up.

Yeah, I mean because it is still a very
expensive procedure.
Yeah, a very expensiveprocedure.

Yeah, I mean it's still costing money and
because it usually requiresmultiple cycles to make this
work.
So you're talking roughly$2,000 to $7,000 a cycle,
depending on how far it goes.
And you multiply that by two orthree, if you can get it within
that cycle, yeah, that's a lotof money.

That's $15,000 or more.
Yeah, and I actually saw someresearch the other day that
looked at other countries thathave gone this route of really
promoting at a governmentallevel promoting IVF and
apparently it has had nodiscernible effect on their
birth rate in those countries?
Oh, that's interesting had nodiscernible effect on their
birth rate in those countries.
And when you think about it, itkind of makes sense because the

(08:12):
reason the birth rate is downis because people aren't getting
married young enough and havingchildren young enough and
having big enough families.
And adding IVF which isgenerally something only for
people who are later in theirmarriage, later in life, who
can't, you know, or who arehaving fertility problems,
that's not really going to makethe numbers budge much by
promoting that.

Yeah, and I mean I'll be honest with the
people that I've known that havedone IVF.
I don't think there has everbeen.
I mean just I know this isanecdotal, but like more than
two kids that in their familythat have gone through, been
through IVF, I mean it's just,it isn't something that you
maybe would do IVF for likeeight children or something

(08:55):
Right, unless you're Elon Musk.

Yeah.

Yeah exactly, or Octomom oh the Octomom.

Yes, yes yes, yep, all right.
Well, always fun to talk aboutIVF with Bob here.
Yeah, so moving along toanother topic, talking about the
measles spike in Texas,recently there's been some

(09:23):
measles spike cases in Texas.
What do we know about that,jeff?

Well, it's, in a way, not all that surprising
given some of the trends thatwe've been seeing in the United
States recently, but this reportI was looking at recently that
says nearly 100 people acrossTexas and New Mexico have
contracted measles.
This is shocking in a way or atleast it should be because not

(09:47):
too long ago the United Statesgovernment had basically
declared measles was conquered.
It's been eliminated, it's nota problem anymore.
There are always going to be afew cases here and there, which
were usually because they werecontracted overseas or it was an
immigrant or somebody like thatwho had not been vaccinated or
something like that, but as faras Americans went, it had been

(10:08):
basically eliminated, and so theonly reason that this is
showing up now as an outbreak inthis part of West Texas is that
parents have not been gettingtheir kids vaccinated, and once
that germ gets in there itinfects people and it spreads,
and apparently some of thepeople who have been victimized
by this are even people who havebeen vaccinated, but the

(10:31):
vaccination effect wasn't asstrong in them and they still
managed to contract the diseasewhich you know again.

That's interesting to me, yeah.
So I mean I guess I don'treally understand that too much
how that could happen.
And you know, then I mean Icould see other people listening
and thinking, well, if they'regetting it and they're
vaccinated, then I for sure amnot going to vaccinate my child.

I mean it's like if you're wearing a bulletproof
vest and somebody shoots at youand they happen to hit you in
the leg, you don't say it wasn'ta good idea to wear the
bulletproof vest.
You just say I'm thankful itonly hit me in the leg.
And I think that that's asimilar kind of thing here, and
we've seen this with the COVIDvaccine.
Despite what was often saidwhen it was first getting
promoted, covid vaccine doesn'tkeep everyone from getting COVID
.
But if you've been vaccinatedand you get COVID, the effect is

(11:23):
not as strong, you don't get itas bad, and that's going to be
the case with many other typesof vaccines.
Bob probably has more of thedetails there in memory than I
do, but the idea is that atleast you are, your body already
has some antibodies againstthis and so the effect is not
going to be as strong, whereasif you don't have any of the
antibodies because you werenever vaccinated, your body's

(11:46):
not going to be able to adapt aswell.

You know, for years I've listened to
people talk about well, I gotthe flu vaccine, then I caught
the flu, you know, or somethinglike that.
You know people would complainthat they had gotten treatment
Like, for example, treatingbreast cancer.
Right now is really one of thegreat turnaround stories for
early diagnosis, quick treatment.

(12:08):
There's been some wonderfulthings being reported but it
doesn't work 100%.
And none of these things work100% and it's because everyone's
biology and everyone's DNAmakeup is a little bit different
.
You've inherited some strengthsand weaknesses from your
ancestors.
But I get to read what peoplewrite when they say well, you

(12:30):
know, some people who werevaccinated got it.
Part of it is people who talkthat way don't understand how
vaccines work.
There's vaccines out there thatmaybe on average show like a 60
or 70 percent, which iswonderful if you're in the 60 or
70 percent, not so great ifyou're in the 30 percent range.
But people have to understandit's that higher percentage and

(12:51):
that's kind of how they work andit was so effective.
I think it was in 2000 whenthey declared measles eradicated
in the United States Becauseit's a combination of that and
what's called herd immunity thatbegins to build and it works.
But other objections that peoplehave had to the vaccines have
been in the development process.
There were fetal cells fromaborted children that were

(13:13):
involved and so forth, andsomeday we'll get into a deep
dive on vaccines and we'll talkabout that stuff.
But the point is is that let'signore all that.
Let's ignore all of the stuffthat gives you angst, and just
think about it this way when youare running around with
full-blown measles and we'resuffering from a low fertility
rate, as it is in the UnitedStates, and your aunt is showing

(13:35):
up at your door with theexciting news that she's
pregnant, you having measlescreates a real, genuine threat
to her and the well-being of herunborn child.
Those are the kinds of thingsthat people have to think about.
When it comes to, you canisolate yourself, which would
probably definitely be wise, butone of the problems is that you

(13:56):
oftentimes are communicablewhen you're not aware that
you've got it or it's not fullblown yet, so there's risks to
other people.
Measles creates creates riskboth in cognitive development
later on in life and so forth.
Those are all things that comein to play when you have an
outbreak like this, and I'm surethat it'll be interesting when

(14:19):
we come back to this podcast 20years from now.
And we will and we will yes Thenwe'll find out how those people
, those children that got themeasles, how they fared, Because
I can guarantee you they'regoing to be tracked now because
there's a lot of debate over youknow what's reliable research,
and so there's a lot of closescrutiny on stuff like this.

And part of this is the perils of success by
eliminating so many of thesechildhood diseases and things
like that, eliminating so manyof these childhood diseases and
things like that.
There are generations that havebeen born with no memory of how
bad they are and can be.
I can't remember where it is.
There's been a polio outbreaksomewhere recently also, and

(15:01):
that's again the kind of thingthat people just did not realize
how common it was that peoplewould be paralyzed or end up,
you know, very weak legs orsomething like that from having
had polio as a kid and ithappened all the time, and then
they found a way to stop it, andso a lot of it's just keeping
the memory of these things goingand going to the effort of

(15:25):
learning everything there is toknow, rather than just latching
onto one fact and saying, okay,this is the one that decides
everything for me.
But but, krista, you know, whenyou you shared an article on
this about measles parties, isthis something that you, as a
mom, want?

to send your kids to.
No, I just I thought it wasinteresting.
It came from the AustinAmerican Statesman, which is the
Austin newspaper, which I wasfamiliar with, and yeah, it was
just talking about.
I guess, like when you havemeasles right, you just
collectively get to get, or Iguess if you don't have measles,

(16:01):
you find somebody that doeshave measles right and then
you're just trying to exposeyour family or your kids to the
measles.

Yeah, that's essentially the idea, right, and
it's something they used to dowith chickenpox, but of course,
chickenpox is not as dangerousas measles.

I was about to say I don't think I would take
my kid to a measles party.
Chickenpox is one thing, butmeasles seems, like you said,
more severe.

Yeah, yeah.
And the idea is that you getthe kids exposed, they develop
the immunity and because it allhappens at once, then you don't
have to worry in the futureabout any of your kids mixing
and picking it up.
That way, you just get it alltaken care of right up front.

But again, it's a silly notion.
It's like Mother Earth Jonesversion of medicine, because you
know you're paying no attentionto the fact that, oh good, okay
, all of my kids got the measlesat the same time.
But there's consequences thatgo beyond them, and one of my
frustrations and having gonethrough the vaccine wars in our
circles, one of the frustrationshas always been this incredible

(17:10):
self-centered approach tolooking at this stuff.
Well, as long as my kids arecovered, as long as we get it,
you know, we're fine.
But the problem with measleswhen you study it, is the damage
it causes to others around you,and others who either don't
have your immunity, others whodon't have your health
background.
And so many times I've heardparents say well, my kids are

(17:32):
fine, they've done that, They'vegrown up.
Well, we got it when we werekids.
We were fine.
I got measles when I was a kidand from the measles I caught
pneumonia and from pneumonia Ialmost died.
Okay, so measles may have beena good idea for you, but it
didn't fare so well for me, soI've always been.
You know, people who talk thatway just are being very with

(17:53):
blinders on.

It's just real interesting to just to keep an
eye on with all that kind ofstuff and get to well I guess
maybe a few articles all underthe topic of suggesting that
states with abortion bans areseeing poor maternal health
results.

Yeah, it's both maternal and infant health
things.
They're two different articlesor whatever.
They're both pulling the datafrom states, looking at the
states that have abortion bansand comparing them to states
that don't have the abortionbans, and basically the
conclusions they're reaching aresaying that there's higher
infant mortality in the stateswith abortion bans and saying

(18:39):
that there's also a higherinstance of maternal ill health
results from a pregnancy inthose states as well?

Is that particularly related to sepsis?

Okay, yeah, and sepsis is basically what you
might call an all-body infection, so when something gets into
your bloodstream goes throughyour entire body, which is a
very, very serious kind ofinfection.

Okay, you know, the subject of maternal
health has been high on theradar for a while now, and
should be, because the UnitedStates has a deplorable record
in this regard for beingarguably the most developed
country in the world, and yetour maternal health, maternal
mortality rate is embarrassing.

(19:26):
So we already have a problem inthis regard, and then you've
got infant problems.
So the problem I have with thearticles is that they were tying
a connection between, you know,abortion oh, now that you've
tightened up, now that the statehas restricted the number of
abortions you can have, now wehave all these other problems.
Already a wound that was there.

(19:54):
But secondly, you got toremember that, oh, so we did not
abort 10,000 children this yearand we've had 150 increased
instances of infant and maternalhealth problems.
You got to remember thatabortion is always fatal.
I mean it's always fatal to thechild.
So if you're going to compare,you better make it apples to
apples, don't try to mix them up.
But I strongly advocate greaterstudy in good palliative care

(20:18):
for both children and motherswhen they give birth.
The other argument that wasmade in the articles was that
some of these children wouldhave been aborted because they
could have been diagnosed in thewomb with some sort of fetal
defect.
So they'll say that's skewingthe statistics also.
Well again, just remember fetaldefects are undeniable.

(20:41):
There are those, and some of uscarry our defects well into
adulthood and into the end of anormal life.
But there are never grounds fortermination, you know, at least
not biblical grounds.
And to presume that authorityagainst God still makes it wrong
.

When I hear the argument or the articles and
what they have highlighted,first I just think like kind of
how Bob says like okay, well,yeah, I mean all these children
have been saved though.
But then I mean I do just kindof wonder, you know, why is the
health so bad?

(21:22):
I mean I know Bob likehighlighted some of that, but
are there any other reasons,like as to why the numbers would
show what they do?

Oh, first of all that ever since any of the
pro-life or the abortion bansand things like that got passed,
there have been people, farfrom being objective scientists,
who have said we've got to findproof that this is a bad idea,
and so they have a conclusionand go in search of the data
instead of looking at the dataand drawing a conclusion from it

(21:51):
.
And so a lot of this is kinditself an anomalous kind of
statistic to be looking at.
So you can't really and it.

(22:18):
You know a smaller percentageof the total, and so you know
any conclusions you draw fromthat are not necessarily going
to map on to a larger population.
The case on maternal sepsisrates indicated that there seems
to be an ethnic dimension to it, and it's not saying these
people are because they'reethnic.

(22:39):
They have this ethnicity.
It's more just like thatethnicity, ethnic background, is
closely related with poorhealth overall, and so therefore
those people are more likely toget a sepsis infection, whether
they're in the hospital for apregnancy or they're in there
for some other kind of surgeryor procedure.

(22:59):
And you know, by not drawingattention to that, they just
take the facts out there.
You know this statistic andthey say okay, well then, this
applies across the board, showsthat there's a danger with all
these procedures and things likethat.
But again, as pointed out, whywe're able to see some of these
things that people are able tosay, oh see, that's bad.

(23:22):
It's because there are morekids being born, more
pregnancies carried to term.
That means because for everythousand pregnancies, there are
going to be X percentage ofproblems.
Well, if you have morepregnancies coming to term,
you're going to have more ofthose.
Abortion bans shows that over22,000 lives have been saved by

(23:54):
these laws.
Those are babies that have beenborn that otherwise would not
have been born.
This is good.

You know, one of the things that needs to
be looked at is what is theimplication of this?
The implication is that if weallow those states to do more
abortions again, the implicationis that if we allow those
states to do more abortionsagain, this number will go down.
But it's ignoring the problem.
The problem is the care that'sbeing provided or not provided
for the mothers and the children.
In the first place, and beforeDobbs, this was a problem.

(24:24):
Before Roe v Wade in 73, it wasa problem.
The point is that maternal andneonatal, or newborn health has
always been a concern.
Now some of the other studies,the deeper medical journals,
talk about the fact that you'vegot a contrast between city
hospitals and rural hospitals.
So maybe this shifted moreattention to the rural hospitals

(24:48):
, which are typically not aswell equipped to deal with some
of these medical complicationsas a city hospital.
And there's other ramificationsthere which tells me well then,
maybe we need to spiff up therural hospitals a little bit.
You know, the point is is thata biased media, which is what
we've been dealing with herelately, will pick up a story

(25:08):
like this, run with it with theimplication that we've got to
have more abortions, and thenthis will go back down
completely ignoring the problemthat was there before all that,
and that is, we've got to tendto the health issues of the
mother and the child.

A related issue I don't think we've talked about
it here and this focuses mainlyon some cases in Texas.
There are people who are sayingokay, this woman I don't know
if there were actually anydeaths involved, but definitely
bad maternal issues or whateverhad an ectopic pregnancy and
because of Texas pro-lifeabortion bans, she did not get

(25:41):
the care that she should haveand bad things resulted from
that.
Press has made a really bigdeal about this, lawsuits have
been filed and things like that,but the thing is that the laws
in Texas do not in any wayrestrict proper care for any
woman who has an ectopicpregnancy, which means that

(26:02):
either you've got doctors andstaff who are saying we're going
to make a point out of this,which I certainly hope is not
happening, or they are simplyignorant of the real status of
things and they're makingassumptions about what the law
does and doesn't allow which areincorrect, which just checking
would would would reveal forthem.
So that's again.

(26:24):
These things get, get, get verymuch blown out of proportion to
serve an agenda.

Yeah, yeah, I think we're seeing a lot of that
, all right, well, I wanted tohit one more topic here Back, I
don't know, the first year of usdoing the podcast we had Dr Rob
Balza on and we talked aboutthe first pig heart transplant.
Since then they've, I mean,been, you know, trying to do

(26:53):
more of those and I think wasthere now kidney transplants and
they've done the fourth pigkidney transplant.
Bob, can you tell us a littlebit about what is being done now
in the world of pig?

transplants.
All I can think of is bacon,bacon, bacon, bacon.

I found myself wondering what did they do with
the rest of the pig?
Yeah, I know we're having apotluck today.

Robert Fleischm (27:20):
Transplantation of well, this is actually the
arena of calledxenotransplantation, which is
cross-species transplantationpresents its natural challenges.
First of all, you've got theorgan rejection and so forth
which, by the way, you have evenwithin same species
transplantation, like if you geta human kidney from somebody
else.
Rejection is always a problemand stuff, but it's a real

(27:42):
problem with cross-species.
But secondly, you've also gotdesign issues.
The way God designed a kidneyfor an animal and the way God
designed it for a human are twodifferent ones.
It's funny because in the earlypapers on early research in
transplantation there'sfascinating stories about trying
something and not compensatingfor the fact that human blood

(28:04):
pressure is higher than theblood pressure that was in the
animal from which the organ wastaken from, and so it would
literally blow the organ out.
Just things like that wouldoccur.
So those are all factors thatcome into play.
But they actually have, overtime, found out that certain pig
organs work in humans.
And once they've determinedthat certain pig organs work in

(28:25):
humans, you move on to the nextmajor problem, which is organ
rejection.
And what's driving all of thisis a big shortfall of available
organs to be used fortransplantation.
So they're trying to do this.
There's another front out therewhere they're also working on
trying to create, you know,re-engineered using a person's

(28:45):
stem cells to then try torecreate organs that way, but
right now.
To then try to recreate organsthat way, but right now using
pig organs, and announcing thesesuccesses.
This latest one was that thepatient has survived the longest
a few months now with it, andso forth.
This is all good signs ifyou're into that.
People have written me andtalked to me after presentations

(29:05):
asking are there problems withxenotransplantation?
Are there problems withxenotransplantation?
Personally, I would neverrecommend a xenotransplantation
for anyone childbearing, anyonewho plans to have children.
You know, because the DNA runsinto your system.
You now have the DNA of a beastof some sort.

(29:26):
I think that that's always aconcern.
I'm probably not as concernedfor someone who is beyond
childbearing years, which Idon't believe.
Any of these have been peoplewho were looking to have
children afterwards and it doeshave a way of holding out hope.
Now people will say, well,isn't this wrong, isn't this
terrible to be takingxenotransplant organs and so

(29:48):
forth.
I'm not sold that it'snecessarily a problem.
It gets to be a problem becausewe don't know if there is the
carrying forward of the DNAthat's going to be showing up
later in the line.
That is why I would stay awayfrom procreative options in this
, but I think as a life-savingmeasure, it's proving itself

(30:09):
that it works.

Yeah, this is.
You know, we hear so manynightmare stories about things
that science is trying to dothat it shouldn't.
This is one where I'd say thisis a good use of this.
It's solving a real problem andit's not killing people, at
least not deliberately.

And don't let Hollywood distract you from
this.
I mean, you can make some greatmovies.
Just let your imagination run,you know, all of a sudden, you
know, uncle Charlie had a pigkidney put in.
Every once in a while, he justgoes outside and starts rolling
in the mud.
You know, but it doesn't quitework like that, although there
have been fascinating studiesabout transplanted organs

(30:44):
bringing along transplantedmemories, but that's a topic for
another day.

Yeah, I'm just imagining someone you know
getting these transplantedmemories of wallowing in mud or
something like that.
I've been just longing for cornhusks.
Yeah, I mean, you know, and aspro-lifers, the need for donor
organs, you know, available fortransplant has been one of the
things that's been pushing foreuthanasia and assisted suicide.

(31:11):
People saying, hey, if we openthis up, then we can get their
organs if they're willing, andthings like that.
It also puts pressure on eitherthe patients themselves or,
more likely, their families, ifthey've been in a horrible
accident or something like thatand they're alive now but
they're not going to be for long, and the you know the
transplant team comes in andsays, hey, you know, we could

(31:32):
really use dad's liver, you know, and that puts pressure there.
And if this could relieve someof that kind of pressure by
making, you know, thexenotransplantation option
available again, that would be agood thing.

One thing to keep in mind, too, is that our
desire to make right choices onlife and family issues is rooted
in a desire to show gratitudeto God for our salvation and
what he's done for us.
So when we look at things likethis, where Scripture has not
forbidden it, so it falls inthat realm of freedom.

(32:08):
So we look at that Within therealm of freedom, we look at
what we can do, and so now youstart paying attention to the
other things, like will itcreate other health issues, will
it, you know?
And so, and those are the areasthat you start focusing on.
So I think it's an encouragingdevelopment.
I think it's something thatstill has to be watched very
closely, and especially if youget into the whole procreative

(32:29):
thing, I think then we want tobe concerned.

Well, thank you both for today for tackling
these topics for us, and if youare listening and have any
questions on any of these,please reach out to us at
lifechallengesus and we lookforward to having you back next
time.
Thanks a lot, bye.

Paul Snamiska (32:52):
Thank you for joining us for this episode of
the Life Challenges podcast fromChristian Life Resources.
Please consider subscribing tothis podcast, giving us a review
wherever you access it andsharing it with friends.
We're sure you have questionson today's topic or other life
issues.
Our goal is to help you throughthese tough topics and we want
you to know we're here to help.

(33:13):
You can submit your questions,as well as comments or
suggestions for future episodes,at lifechallengesus or email us
at podcast atchristianliferesourcescom.
In addition to the podcasts, weinclude other valuable
information at lifechallengesus,so be sure to check it out.

(33:35):
For more about our parentorganization, please visit
christianliferesourcescom.
May God give you wisdom, love,strength and peace in Christ for
every life challenge.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Boysober

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Dateline NBC

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}What’s Trending? Xenotransplantation, IVF, Maternal Health, and Measles Outbreak