On Saturday, during a panel discussion on the right to life and human dignity at CPAC, Allie Beth Stuckey, known to many as “the Conservative Millennial,” spoke about the way in which abortion advocates arbitrarily define the moment at which a human being is worthy of “life.”
First, Stuckey talked about how much society’s attitude has changed regarding abortion:
Let me just kind of give some perspective of where I think we are, and why it's so important — not just for millennials like myself, but for everyone to care about this subject.
So, first track with me for a second because it's going to seem like I'm not talking about abortion, but I am. I just saw the second “Godfather” for the first time this past week, and there's this conversation that two main characters are having — Kay and Michael — and Kay compares her marriage to an abortion; she calls it “evil” and “unholy.” And that just struck me because how far have we come in 45 years, not just since the movie was made, but since Roe vs. Wade, from calling an abortion “evil” and “unholy” to calling it “reproductive freedom”? To calling it “women's rights”? To calling it “privacy”?
But what you and I know is that no amount of political correctness, no amount of manipulation can hide the fact that just one abortion provider is murdering over 1,000 children every single day in this country.
She then compared the abortion lobby’s arbitrary definition of when “life” begins to genocides throughout history:
The principle of abortion is literally why we look in disgust at Hitler's Germany, for example. It's the same exact principle of having a subjective standard of human worthiness, and exterminating anyone who doesn't meet that standard. That has literally been the mark of every dictatorial and depraved regime and nation since the beginning of time. We look back at history in shame on those crimes against humanity, but why, today, do we not look in shame at where we are right now in 2018 in the United States of America — not just allowing it, but normalizing it, glorifying it, and calling it “choice”? And if you think that our absolute apathy and disregard for human dignity stops with life inside the womb, unfortunately you are wrong.
Stuckey spoke about Peter Singer, a bioethicist and philosopher who teaches at Princeton, whose definition of “life” allows for the termination of those both inside and outside the womb:
His argument for the moral acceptance of abortion is that the baby inside the womb — he acknowledges that it is scientifically a human being — but it does not meet the standard of personhood, and that is: rationality, autonomy, and the ability to be self-conscious. So, he says because of that, because they don't meet the standard of that personhood, then life inside the womb doesn't really have any rights. But, and here's where the honesty comes in — because most pro-choicers would probably agree with that — but here's his honesty: He says if that is our standard of human worthiness to live, then logically, we have to apply that to everyone — to life inside the womb and outside the womb.
So he is an open advocate for infanticide; he is an open advocate for terminating people with severe special needs and severe mental illness because they don't meet that subjective standard of personhood.
Stuckey also mentioned how far our lawmakers have fallen:
... in January, the House passed the Born Alive Survivors Protection Act, which says a doctor who is performing an abortion has to save the life of the child who survived that abortion — so, outside the womb. All but six Democrats in the House voted “No” to saving the infant. To show you where we've come, back in 2002, a very similar if not stricter bill passed ... in both chambers by just a voice vote.
She added that just as the termination of infants prenatally diagnosed with Down syndrome is currently accepted in many countries, including the United States, it will eventually move to other disabilities:
Most pro-choicers prefer that life is terminated inside the womb because the PR strategy for Planned Parenthood — to be openly pro-infanticide is little bit tricky — so they prefer that life be terminated inside the womb, which is why they are completely fine with places like Iceland having a 99.9% rate of terminating babies inside the womb with Down syndrome. That's why they're okay with it happening here at a 60% rate. And if you don't think that that's going to eventually extend to people with autism or different kinds of special needs, then you're absolutely blind.
Stuckey concluded by noting that “life” is the most important part of our constitutionally guaranteed rights, because without it, the others are irrelevant:
Here's why this matters; here's why human dignity matters; here's why it's important that we don't set some subjective, arbitrary standard of human worthiness that people don't meet. One, because we've already joined the ranks of North Korea and China in being one of only seven countries to allow abortion after 20 weeks, when a baby is known to flinch from the abortion needle, but also because without life, not a single one of our rights granted to us by God and guaranteed to us in the Constitution is secure. Every single one of them is at stake — and the founders knew this. That is exactly why, in the Declaration, “life” is listed before “liberty” or the “pursuit of happiness” because without life, without the protection of life, the understanding and agreement that human dignity starts in the womb, neither liberty nor the pursuit of happiness exists.