Lila Rose debates Stephanie Miller at UCLA: 'Should abortion be legal?'

Live Action founder and president Lila Rose traveled to her alma mater of UCLA on Wednesday, January 14, for a debate with comedian and political commentator Stephanie Miller discussing the topic: Should abortion be legal?

In front of a group of students, Rose and Miller touched on the moral and legal foundations of abortion, bodily autonomy, and the role of government in protecting human life.

Key Takeaways:

• Live Action's Lila Rose debated political commentator Stephanie Miller at UCLA on January 14.

• Rose's arguments centered on the fact that the preborn child is a human being with inherent rights, and that abortion is always the direct and intentional taking of that life.

• Miller repeatedly insisted that abortion is a political issue, and argued that the preborn child is not a human with rights. Her central point was that abortion is an issue of the mother's bodily autonomy and her choice alone.

The Details:

Watch the debate:

Abortion Debate at UCLA Gets Heated - Lila Rose vs. Stephanie Miller

Viability vs. humanity

Rose centered her argument on the basis that abortion involves the intentional killing of an innocent human being. "Abortion is the direct and intentional killing of a preborn human life," she explained. "Abortion is not miscarriage... it is a procedure designed to do one thing: intentionally and directly take the life of a child."

"Should abortion be legal?" she asked. "No. Not if we acknowledge the science. Not if we acknowledge basic human rights."

Miller chose right from the start to reject both science and the extension of human rights to every member o the human species. She objected to the idea that a preborn human should be legally treated as a person, arguing that humanity is somehow tied to viability.

“I don’t believe it’s a human being,” she said. “It is not viable outside the woman’s womb. The woman should have the choice over her own body.”

The offspring of two humans can be nothing other than human; this is basic biology. Yet Miller does not believe the child in the womb is a human being:

A Never Before Seen Look At Human Life In The Womb | Baby Olivia

Rose challenged Miller's line of thinking, arguing that dependence and developmental stage do not determine humanity.

“You and I are made of cells,” she said. “The child in the womb is not just ‘cells’—it has a unique genetic identity from the moment of fertilization.”

Abortion Ends A Human Life

She added that 'viability' (the point at which a human is believed to be able to survive outside the womb) is an arbitrary standard: “Why does viability define your human rights? Newborn babies are also completely dependent.”

Bodily autonomy vs. the right to life

Though Miller repeatedly tried to make abortion an issue of politics, her argument was that the mother's bodily autonomy is more important than the right of a preborn human to exist.

"I think it should be a woman’s choice,” she said repeatedly, asserting that abortion decisions should be made “between a woman and her doctor," but failing to actually address the core of the issue — that abortion is the intentional and direct killing of a human being in the womb.

Miller maintained that 'forcing' a woman to carry a pregnancy amounts to government control over women’s bodies, when in reality, pregnancy is a process that continues to birth unless it is interrupted by miscarriage or by force — that force being the abortion itself, deliberately ending the life in the womb.

Miller also jumped to the most rare scenario (though certainly the most commonly mentioned by abortion proponents), discussing abortions when a pregnancy results from rape or incest.

“So even in cases of rape,” Miller said, “a child should be forced to carry the child like The Handmaid’s Tale?”

Rose rejected that framing. “Why should a child [in the womb] be given the death penalty for the crimes of his or her father?” she asked, arguing that victims of sexual violence deserve support and justice — but that abortion punishes an innocent third party.

Rose framed abortion as incompatible with feminism and human rights. “Killing your baby is not empowerment,” she said. “We cannot be empowered by crushing the weakest among us.”

Miller, in contrast, reaffirmed a woman's bodily autonomy as the core issue. “Nobody wants to have an abortion,” she said. “But the reason a woman has one is none of your business. It’s not your body.”

And yet, we live in a society in which everyone's bodily autonomy is limited to some degree.

Conclusion:

The wide-ranging debate also touched on topics of late abortion, infanticide, disability, and issues of the mother's health. Following their conversation, the two answered questions from students in the crowd.

Throughout the debate, Rose was consistent with her argument, and the reasons why: the preborn child is a human being with an inherent right to life. “Every single person has value and is made in God’s image, born and unborn,” she said.

Miller continued to try to turn the conversation toward politics, and held firm in her stance that abortion is largely a question of a mother's bodily autonomy, repeatedly denying the humanity of the child in the womb (when scientifically, it can be nothing other than human), and continuing to parrot her belief that abortion "should be the woman's choice."