Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 921 | To the Texas Mom Suing to Abort Her Baby

Starting point is 00:00:00 Hey, this is Steve Day. If you're listening to Allie, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true about God, humanity, and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort. We ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular. This is a show for people who want honesty over hype and clarity over chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where we are or where we're headed, you can watch this D-Day show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us.

Starting point is 00:00:40 A Texas woman is suing the state in order to have an abortion after receiving a tragic diagnosis for her baby. Is this justified? Also, Shane Dawson, a controversial YouTuber, has welcomed twin. boys with his partner via surrogate. You know, I've got a lot to say about both of these things. We'll also comment on a few other stories. This episode is brought to you by our friends at Good Ranchers. Go to Good Ranchers.com.

Starting point is 00:01:12 Use code Allie at checkout. That's good ranchers.com code Alley. Hey, y'all. Welcome to Relatable. Happy Tuesday. Yes, it's Tuesday. Hope everyone's having a wonderful week. If you haven't listened to yesterday's episode with John Cooper

Starting point is 00:01:36 of skillet. It was awesome. Those of you who did listen to it or watched it loved it. I got your feedback on that. So if you haven't done that, go ahead and listen to it. All right, we've got so much to cover today. This week is the last week that we are filming before Christmas. We've got some episodes that are coming out over the next few weeks. But the three weeks of our Christmas New Year's break, we will not be putting out new episodes. every day, just a little holiday break for the relatable team before we start back in full force in 2024. Oh my gosh, it's an election year next year. I'm crying about that. I can't believe it. I can't believe it's already an election year. And we're about to go into the craziest

Starting point is 00:02:28 election season of our lives. And yes, we've been saying that for the past few election seasons. but that's because it's getting crazier and crazier. And so Relatable is going to be here, y'all. It's going to be here four days a week, bringing you the craziness. We're not going to be into think of politics and polls all the time. That's just not how we do. Of course, we'll be talking about it, but we're also going to do our best to bring you redemptive stories every week, stories, testimonies of how the Lord is saving people,

Starting point is 00:02:59 good news of things that are happening. We're going to wait through the craziness and the chaos because, We have to do that. That is our responsibility here at Relatable, but we're also going to try to make you laugh, make you praise the Lord. Remember that God is good and sovereign over all of all things, because it will be very easy to get sucked into the madness. And we don't want to do that.

Starting point is 00:03:20 We don't want to do that. We want to go into the madness and then come back out and remember that God is in control and that there are still things to laugh about and be joyful about. So we got to take a little breather as the relatable team over the next few weeks. So until then, though, because we've still got the new episodes today, tomorrow, and Thursday, we've got a lot to talk about, a lot to get through before we take our break. Okay. So I first want to talk about this story that so many of you have sent me that I've seen all over social media. And that is about this Texas woman whose name is Kate Cox, who is seeking an abortion at 20 weeks halfway through her pregnancy, saying that she will leave the state for the procedure.

Starting point is 00:04:04 and courts are currently weighing her case. You might have heard that the courts granted her so-called right to have an abortion, but the battle is still ongoing. This is a kind of complicated case because Texas has banned most abortions. But there is an exception in Texas for the life or the health of the mother, of the mother. this is what section 170A.0.002 says it prohibits a person from performing, inducing, or attempting an abortion. There is an exception for situations in which the life or health of the pregnant patient, it says, is at risk. In order for the exception to apply, three factors must be met.

Starting point is 00:04:52 A licensed physician must perform the abortion. The patient must have a life-threatening condition and be at risk of death or substantial impairment of a major bodily function if the abortion is not performed. The physician must try to save the life of the fetus unless this would increase the risk of the pregnant patient's death or impairment. So that's what the law says post Dobbs v. Jackson in the state of Texas. And so why is this woman Kate Cox suing the state in order to have an abortion in Texas? While her child, her baby, was diagnosed with something called trisomy 18. Some people might pronounce it.

Starting point is 00:05:34 Trisomy 13, a rare chromosomal disorder, which is usually, but not always fatal. It's a disorder in which babies are born with three copies of the 18th chromosome instead of two. So this is according to the NIH National Library of Medicine. Five to 10% of children with this condition, which is typically screen. prenatally so in the womb live past their first year and often have severe intellectual disability. Despite the well-known infant mortality, approximately 50% of babies with trisomy 18 live longer than one week outside of the womb.

Starting point is 00:06:19 5 to 10% of these children live beyond the first year. But the major causes of death when it comes to these children diagnosed with this condition include a central apnea, cardiac failure due to cardiac malformations, respiratory insufficiency due to hyperventilation, aspiration, or upper airway obstruction, and likely the combination of these and other factors, upper airway obstruction is likely more common than previously realized and should be investigated when full care is opted by the family and medical team. So that's according to this finding. So there is a high mortality rate when it comes to these children.

Starting point is 00:07:05 So obviously this diagnosis in the womb is devastating for a parent because your child, your wanted child that you are so excited about birthing, excited about raising, is either going to die pretty quickly after death or is going to have a severe disability the if the diagnosis is correct. And so I can sympathize with this mother that she is devastated over this diagnosis. Of course, she had hopes and dreams for this child, and those hopes and dreams have come crashing down since she was told that her baby has trisomy 18. What I cannot sympathize with is her intent to get an abortion,

Starting point is 00:07:53 her desire to abort her child at 20 weeks gestation and beyond, and that she is so passionate about being able to abort her child that she is actually suing the state of Texas. And she is being hoisted up as a hero, as a representation of all women, of bodily autonomy, in her pursuit to abort her child. Now, you might be wondering, on what grounds is she suing the state?

Starting point is 00:08:20 If the state already has an exception for the health and the life of the mother, what justification is she and are her lawyers presenting to the state to say, hey, she should be able to abort her child? Well, I will tell you that. And then I will do my best to debunk their reasoning in just one second. Okay. So Cox and her husband sought a court order to block Texas's abortion bans from a applying to her case. She said that she was stunned when her doctor told her that she wouldn't be able to legally have an abortion. Now, why does she want to have an abortion? She wants to have an abortion because she doesn't want to birth a child with these special needs because she doesn't, I guess,

Starting point is 00:09:19 want to go through the process of holding her child, of caring for her child, of seeing her child, of loving her child in those first few moments of that child's life. She instead wants to through a procedure called a D&E, a dilation and extraction, where her cervix would be dilated, and her child at this point in gestation is so big that she would actually have to be dismembered before she is removed from her mother's womb. And so a doctor would go in with forceps and would take apart the child's body, ripping the child's arms and legs from the torso, removing the head from the torso in order to be able to remove this child piecemeal from this mother's womb. This is the procedure that this mother is suing the state to be able to access.

Starting point is 00:10:15 And so I know that we're told that we're supposed to have a bunch of sympathy for this. And again, I do have sympathy for anyone receiving a terrible diagnosis for their child. I do not have sympathy for the desire to do. dismember your child. I simply don't. Now, here's an interesting ted bit, is that according to the Center for Reproductive Rights, court documents, the Center for Reproductive Rights is the organization that is representing this Texas woman. She is arguing that she wants to be able to have an abortion for her health, even though the doctors have told her, hey, your life is not at risk here. And so you don't qualify under Texas law is someone who can legally receive an abortion.

Starting point is 00:11:05 She is saying, well, but my health is actually at risk. And here's what she says or here's what her lawyers at the Center for Reproductive Rights are arguing. Ms. Cox's physicians explained that some families with a trisomy 18 diagnosis choose to continue their pregnancies while others choose abortion. She was told that in her case, there was virtually no chance that their baby would survive to birth her long afterwards. So Ms. Cox asked about termination. By the way, doctors are very often wrong. Like, there is a limit to these diagnostic tests. They are not always right.

Starting point is 00:11:39 Even if they are right, obviously it doesn't justify murdering an innocent image bearer of God. But very often they're wrong, by the way. But she was told her baby probably wouldn't survive at all. Ms. Cox was shocked when her physician told her that due to Texas abortion bans, as long as her baby had a heartbeat, she would not be able to obtain an abortion in Texas. All they could do is continue to monitor the baby for cardiac activity. If the baby's heartbeat stopped, they could offer her a labor induction. But because of her prior C-section's induction carries a serious risk of uterine rupture. It carries about a 2% risk.

Starting point is 00:12:16 So I'll say that as someone who had a V-back, a vaginal birth after Cesarian, after 2%. two C-sections. I am pretty familiar with the risks. There, if you use potocin, which is what is used in a labor induction, the synthetic form of oxytocin, which is necessary for the uterus to contract, then you increase your risk of uterine rupture. You have that scar in your uterus. There's a chance of it opening up. It's about a 2% risk. So a 98% chance that that will not happen. But there's a 2% risk that it will happen. I'm not saying that's not a risk at all. And by the way, uterine rupture is actually much more dangerous for the baby in the wound that it is for the mother. Again, I'm not saying it's nothing, but the risk is still very, still very low.

Starting point is 00:13:02 But they go on to say this. If the baby survived to term, Ms. Cox could receive an induction or a C-section, but it was clear to Ms. Cox, not her physicians. It was clear to Ms. Cox that C-section was the safer option for her health because of the risk of uterine rupture with induction given her prior to. two C-sections. Yet, Ms. Cox's physicians also explained that a C-section at full term would make subsequent pregnancies higher risk and make it less likely that she would be able to carry a third child in the future. So let me break this down for you as someone who has had these conversations

Starting point is 00:13:37 before, as someone who, again, had a V-back, a vaginal birth after C-Sycerian after two C-sections. So she's had two C-sections. She is being told if you have a third C-section with this child, if you bring this child to turn that is going to increase the risks of future of your future pregnancies. That risk is very low. Now, I understand wanting to avoid those risks. That's why I had a vaginal birth after two C-sections, because the more C-sections you have, you increase your risk of things like placenta acrida, where the placenta attaches to the scar tissue, which can be very dangerous. You just don't want to have a huge number of C-sections. But look, there are women that have three C-sections, four C-sections. My grandmother had three C-sections back in the 60s, and she was okay.

Starting point is 00:14:26 There are women who have eight C-sections. And so she is using a very negligible risk to justify her pursuit of an abortion. And so she's given a lot of options here. She's told by her physicians, look, if your baby dies tragically inside the womb, we can induce your labor. And she would be fully monitored. She would be monitored in that. case, if there were any emergency situation, they would take care of her very quickly. And in that case, she would be able to birth her baby whole. Or they said, look, we can, if you don't want to go through the risk of having an induction, then we can give you a C-section. We can give you a C-section if your baby dies. We can give you a C-section if your baby survives to turn. We can induce you

Starting point is 00:15:14 if the baby survives to turn. These are all options in order to keep her baby intact. act and to protect the life, to protect the body of her baby, so she'd be able to meet her baby and hold her baby whether the baby was alive or not at the point of birth. But because of the very low, relatively, the very low risks that both induction bring and a repeat C-section bring, she's saying no. She doesn't want to carry those very low risks to her own body. And so she wants to sacrifice her child's body on her behalf. That's the decision that she's making. Her doctors have given her all kinds of alternatives and she said no because she is intent upon dismembering her baby's body. Hey, this is Steve Day. If you're listening to Allie, you already understand that the biggest issues

Starting point is 00:16:06 facing our country aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true about God, humanity, and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort. We ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular. This is a show for people who want honesty over hype and clarity over chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where we are or where we're headed, you can watch this D-Day show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts.

Starting point is 00:16:41 I hope you'll join us. I don't have sympathy for that. I'm sorry. I don't. I don't have compassion for that. I don't have empathy for that. I don't have understanding of that. You have the option, several options on the table to be able to meet your child safely,

Starting point is 00:16:58 to be able to hold your child to see your child's face, whether they are born dead or alive, and you are choosing brutal murder. And you are so intent upon brutal murder that you are suing the state for it. And you're being hoisted up as some kind of media icon, some kind of champion of so-called reproductive rights. Look, there are women who receive these tragic diagnoses every day. They had all kinds of hopes for their child and those hopes are dashed when they were told that their child will not either live to term or live long past the point that they are born. And they make the difficult decision and all parents are called to make difficult decisions

Starting point is 00:17:41 where we lay down our desires, our wants, even in some cases, our safety. and our health for the sake of our child, they make that difficult decision to carry their child to turn and to see their child face to face and to give their child the love and the dignity that that little image bear deserves. It is not necessary for this woman to have an abortion.

Starting point is 00:18:08 She just wants an abortion. I guess she does not want to be able to hold her child whole. Because look, either way, this child is delivered. she's acting like if she chooses an abortion she mitigates all risk that the risk is only on the side of delivering this child via c-section or vaginal birth with an induction that's not true either way the child has to come out there are going to be risks to prematurely dilating your uterus at 20 21 weeks or dilating your cervix rather at 20 20 weeks gestation there is going to be risk to that abortion. There is going to be a risk to dismembering that child with forceps and removing them from your uterus. There is going to be a risk to removing your placenta prematurely if you've got a scar on your uterus or even if you don't. There are risks to the abortion procedure. You just want an abortion. Just say that. It's not about your health.

Starting point is 00:19:16 It's not about the well-being of your child either way that child's got to come out. Either way, there is some risk to you. There's some risk to your uterus. There's some risk to your body. Either you can take that risk on and allow your child to honor your child's dignity, or you can take the risk of an abortion and not honor or dignify your child. Those are the two choices here. So people are sending this to me wondering what I would say. That's what I would say. That's what I would say. Beware of toxic empathy.

Starting point is 00:19:59 Empathy says, good empathy says this. I understand this mother's pain, how difficult it must have been to hear that diagnosis. That's empathy. I understand that. I can put myself in her shoes. I feel that pain. And gosh, I feel for her so much. How can I be there for her? How can I speak life to her? How can I encourage her? What can I do to comfort her and remind her of God's goodness and love and care and plan for her? Toxic empathy says, I feel for you and I will affirm whatever choice you make because I feel for you. Oh, you are sad that you have this diagnosis. You want an abortion. I will celebrate that. I will affirm that. I will agree with that. That's toxic empathy.

Starting point is 00:20:52 Toxic empathy says only focus on your feelings, on her feelings. Don't think about the vulnerable victim inside the womb. Don't think about the reality of abortion. Don't think about the morality of killing an innocent child. True love says, I understand how this mother feels. And I understand that the baby inside her womb, is an image bearer of God. I understand both of these things.

Starting point is 00:21:22 And so in love, I am going to have compassion for both parties here. I am going to speak truth. And I am going to advocate for the life and the well-being of both of these parties. That is the Christian stance on this. That is the compassionate stance on this. That is the biblical stance on this. There's no justification for,

Starting point is 00:21:49 this woman to kill her child. Her sweet image-bearing child. There's just not. She's just being used as a tool, as a prop to try to show, wow, see, this tragic case abortion is necessary. No, it's not. Murdering this child is not necessary. Either way, she will be delivered. This mother has the choice between delivering her child whole or delivering her child dismembered, and she is choosing the latter. We do not have to have empathy for that decision. Let's talk about Shane Dawson. Must we? Yes, we must.

Starting point is 00:22:43 So we've talked about him a few times. If you follow me on Instagram, you've probably seen some of my commentary or maybe some of my commentary on Twitter or X. I've really got to get used to saying X. you've probably seen some of the things that I've said about this because this story makes me very, very, very sad. So YouTubers, Shane Dawson and Rylund Adams, a gay couple welcome twin boys via surrogate. So let me back up a little bit and tell you about this couple. We've talked about them. I think we've done a couple episodes on them.

Starting point is 00:23:18 We can link those episodes if you want to go listen to them. but they are Shane Dawson is has been a YouTuber for a very long time he's got a ton of followers a really big platform and he's been in hot water several times for things that he said the most disturbing things that he said that he said have had to do with pedophilia he has joked about looking up child sex abuse material what's typically referred to as child porn and he said that he said that he thinks. thought that it was sexy. He has talked about 11-year-old girls on social media that he's seen that he thought were sexually attractive. He has made jokes so-called about beastiality. So he's made a lot of very disturbing comments and enough comments that are pedophilia-related for anyone to wonder what is really going on. Just to ask the question of what's on the hard drives there. I think that's very reasonable to be curious about based on the things that Shane Dawson has said. And now he has bought his children. Now he's bought his children. And he and his

Starting point is 00:24:34 partner, Ryland Adams, have been documenting this experience on YouTube, of course. Got to monetize it. Got to monetize the babies that they're buying. Got to make that money back somehow. And they have joked, again, quote unquote, joked about buying the biological mother of their children in a catalog and doing the same thing for the surrogate of their children. And as we've talked about many times, that's how the process goes. If you're buying an egg donor, there are services that you can employ that you can hire to help match you with the egg donor of your choice. And you basically look through a catalog. What eye color do you want?

Starting point is 00:25:18 What hair color do you want? What ethnicity do you want? What socioeconomic background do you want? What are you thinking as far as education, IQ, all of that? You want that, you know, premium DNA, like you're buying a cut of meat. And they buy these eggs from the woman. Now, an interesting thing that I only started thinking about a few months ago was this phrase egg donor, egg donation. I'm like, why are they calling it egg donor, egg donation when that's not really what's happening?

Starting point is 00:25:49 Obviously, these women who are harvesting their eggs, they have to go through an intense medical process to do that, by the way, to stimulate their eggs and then to harvest them and all that. They're making a lot of money from that. That's why they do it. It's not altruistic. It's not out of the goodness of their heart. They're making money by selling their DNA, selling their future children. It's called egg donation because it's actually. illegal to sell your own human tissue in the United States. And so they're technically donating their

Starting point is 00:26:21 eggs, but being paid for their time and effort. Isn't that, isn't that cute, how they're able to kind of get around that? Of course, it's the same thing for sperm, sperm donation. I've started to try to say egg selling and sperm selling, because that is really what it is. Obviously, the people buying these things are buying the DNA. They're purchasing the DNA. That is really what they're paying for. So they went through the catalog. They decided who their egg donor was going to be. And then the egg donor, the biological mother, is separate from the surrogate. The surrogate also has to be chosen based on the background and based on what characteristics that you are looking for. There's another service that can give you the catalog of surrogates to choose from. Sometimes the surrogate is

Starting point is 00:27:10 someone that a couple knows, again, whether it's two men or whether it's a man and a woman seeking a surrogate, but a lot of times it is a complete stranger. Now, why is the egg seller and the surrogate? Why are they separate? Typically, this is a legal requirement to try to separate the bond that the woman would have with the child. It's like we understand that that is the natural relationship that is supposed to be formed. When you take the egg from one woman and you put it in the womb of another woman, you are severing that bond that's created, at least for the women, not for the child, by the way. The child is still creating that bond, creating that natural and instinctive relationship with the woman that is carrying them. He knows her sounds. He knows her,

Starting point is 00:28:02 he knows her heartbeat. He knows her voice. He knows her smell. He knows how she feels. She He longs for her the second that they take him out of the womb. He wants that skin to skin. He craves her milk. And yet, in worse treatment than we give to puppies, we rip that child away, both from the biological mother and from the woman who carried him. And we give him to the two strangers, to, in this case, two males that they don't know who sounds and smells and sights. They are completely unfamiliar with.

Starting point is 00:28:38 and we hope for the best. So we force children into this social experiment and we hope for the best. So that's what's happening here. They got two boys out of this process. They've talked before about how they, that's a picture of them if you're watching on YouTube. There's lots and lots of likes on Instagram, which is just really soul crushing.

Starting point is 00:29:02 They've talked about how they have 12 embryos that they, created. Obviously, they are not going to bring all of those embryos to fruition. So most, if not, all the rest of those embryos are going to be discarded. This is a problem with anyone using IVF, by the way, not just this couple. They've talked about, oh, it's cheaper by the dozen. They even have made comments about, oh, we don't like playing God by choosing our embryos. But of course, that is exactly what they're doing. That's exactly what. what they're doing. So what's going to happen to those little embryos? I'm not sure. But now they have their two boys from buying the eggs from one woman, renting the womb of another woman, robbing these

Starting point is 00:29:51 children of the opportunity to know their mother, to know half of their DNA, but also robbing them of the love of any mother, the love of any woman. And just to show just how dystopian and women replacing this whole situation is, I'll put up this picture that they decided to post. And this picture is Riland. And he's laying on the hospital bed, obviously very exhausted from labor, right next to the little baby and their bassinet. And he is, I mean, this is just so ridiculous. He's laying on the hospital bed sleeping. He's on what's called a chuck pad. And that's the little pad that they put underneath women who have given birth to absorb, just to be a little graphic, to absorb the postpartum bleeding. And I say that to emphasize, like, what we go,

Starting point is 00:30:48 what we women go through, what the surrogate went through and giving birth. And he's laying there, cosplay. He's laying there. Like, he's so exhausted on a hospital bed on the chuck pad after having done nothing, except for coughing up some cash. to buy this baby. It's disgusting. It's dystopian. Brave new world, but make it gay. That's what this is. That's what this is. It is, I'm sorry, but buying these children is a form of human trafficking. Yes, it is. It is. It's like prostitution and human trafficking all in one, super fun, because you're buying the bodies of women and you are purchasing these children. by purchasing their eggs, purchasing half of their DNA from a woman.

Starting point is 00:31:41 And without their consent, carrying them through this very unnatural process all to rob them of a mother. Yikes. Yikes. How could we ever praise this? How could we ever justify something like this? How is this even legal? By the way, it's not legal in most places. People think that I'm so extreme and so radical for saying this. Look, most of the world, even liberal countries. like Canada and like European countries are on my side when it comes to this. America is the wild, wild west when it comes to the reproductive industry. And the reason that it is so accessible is because it makes money. It makes a ton of money. And the medical industrial complex in the United States is second to none. There's a lot of great innovation that comes out of it, but there is a lot of sketchy stuff.

Starting point is 00:32:32 Whether you're looking at the destruction of bodies through gender, ideology or whether you're looking at the reproductive technology that we allow like with any without any mitigation or restriction whatsoever and let me just say once again how this is different than adoption this is different than adoption because adoption redeems a broken situation that already exists and surrogacy slash egg and sperm donation create a broken situation in this case you are creating the child with the intention of severing the natural bond between one of their biological parents and the natural bond between them and the woman who carried them.

Starting point is 00:33:23 You are creating that brokenness. You are creating these embryos with the intention of bringing them into the world in a way that is going to inflict a primal wound upon them. With adoption, the child is already created. Maybe not in an ideal circumstance, but for whatever reason, the mom and dad cannot take care of that child. And so loving parents in an ideal adoption situation, loving parents come in and they give that child the home that they need.

Starting point is 00:33:57 The process is entirely different. The adoptive parents are not picking the biological parent out of the catalog in order to find, you know, the prettiest and brightest and richest mom. They are taking the child that needs help. Also, in adoption, in adoption situations, like there's extensive, there is an extensive process. There is an extensive investigation of your background that is required to adopt a child. That is not the case when it comes to buying eggs and renting wounds. That is not the case when it comes to surrogacy. Trust me, Shane Dawson would not have passed a background check when it comes to this.

Starting point is 00:34:50 If it came to adoption, there's no such regulation. There are very few requirements. There are very few things that you have to prove when it comes to buying children in this way. So they're totally different. They're totally different ethically. They're totally different morally. It's redemption versus exploitation. That's what's going on here.

Starting point is 00:35:15 And so I'm very concerned for these poor boys. We, of course, need to pray for them. these little boys are of course have just as much worth and value as anyone else. They are the innocent victims in this situation. And they are made in the image of God. They matter. I mean, we should pray for Shane and Ryland that they know Christ, that they are able to repent. But gosh, pray for these sweet boys.

Starting point is 00:35:45 Pray for the children who are victims of forced fatherlessness. and forced motherlessness, who are required to sacrifice their need for a mom and a dad because their parents wanted something, sacrifice their own needs for their parents wants. What do we always say that children are always the unconsenting subjects of progressive social experiments? This is a progressive social experiment, whether it's abortion, whether it's gender

Starting point is 00:36:19 ideology, whether it's forced masking and lockdown's children are always the primary unconsenting victims, the unconsenting parties in these progressive social experiments. Very, very sad. Thank you to those of you who have told me that your mind has changed or your thinking has been impacted by us talking about this so much. That really means a lot to me. And like I am on this journey with you. I didn't think about this either a few years ago.

Starting point is 00:36:53 It's not like I'm the first person who has been championing the conversation about ethics surrounding reproductive technology. Not at all. There was just a spark inside me a few years ago. And I decided, wow, this is not being talked about enough. We need to talk about these children too. If we care about life from the moment of conception onward, we need to care about these children too. And as always, shout out to Katie Faust, Jennifer Law, and all the other people who have been doing this work for a very long time. Okay, so I was going to talk about, maybe I'll just like very briefly talk about this clotting gay thing because I actually want to talk about this other story a little bit more that is that better ties into everything else that we've been talking about.

Starting point is 00:37:52 But let me just mention this because it's in my notes and everyone's talking about it. So the Harvard president, Claudine Gay, she is in hot water right now because she is being accused of plagiarism. Christopher Rufo, a journalist whom we've had on several times, he has uncovered her plagiarism. She's the president of Harvard that you probably just saw give a congressional testimony unable to say whether calling for the genocide of Jews on campus. constitutes his harassment. This is what all of the major Ivy League presidents said who were in that congressional hearing that they can't say whether or not that constitutes his harassment. Isn't that insane? It's insane. It's just because they're scared of the progressive activist on campus. They know the answer to this, but on the intersectional totem pole, somehow like Hamas is higher

Starting point is 00:38:49 than Jews. It's insane. And so they wouldn't say whether that constitutional totem pole, somehow, like, Hamas is higher than Jews. It's insane. And so they wouldn't say whether that constitutes this harassment, a lot of people have been calling for the resignation of these presidents, including Claudine Gay. So she was already in the midst of controversy. Now she is in the midst of controversy even more so because she plagiarized. She has plagiarized several things. Several things over the years. So this is what.

Starting point is 00:39:20 this is what Christopher Rufo found. He said that I have obtained documentation demonstrating that Harvard President Claudine Gay plagiarized multiple sections of her PhD thesis violating Harvard's policies on academic integrity. So he gives an example. She lifted an entire paragraph nearly verbatim from a paper by Lawrence, Bobo, and Franklin Gilliam

Starting point is 00:39:45 while passing it off as her own. And then also he said that she repeats this violation of Harvard's policy throughout her document. Again, using work from Bobo and Gilliam as well as passages from Richard Schingle, Susan Howell, and Deborah Fagum. She reproduces nearly verbatim, not giving her any credit at all. She also lifted material from scholar Carol Swain. Carol Swain is a conservative commentator and author. And she lifts her material and her writing again without giving swaying any credit. This is, of course, plagiarism.

Starting point is 00:40:29 And so it's proven right there out in the open. She has absolutely no credentials that have earned her this spot as Harvard's president, except that she ticks the intersectional boxes as a black woman. That's it. she doesn't have the same resume that previous Ivy League presidents have had, but it's more important that they meet their diversity quota than they have someone who is actually qualified for the job. And in fact, she's actually, it's not just that she's not qualified. She's actually unqualified. She should be disqualified from this position based on her plagiarism because I guess she is intellectually unable to come up with these thoughts herself.

Starting point is 00:41:13 and yet Harvard sent out a memo reaffirming their support for her, reaffirming their support for President Gay's continued leadership of Harvard University. Their extensive deliberations, they say affirm their confidence. The President Gay is the right leader to help our community heal and to address the very serious societal issues that we are facing. So this is just a reminder. We don't have time to get into all of this, but this is just a reminder that honestly, at this point, I think having an Ivy League degree anytime after, I don't know, 2014, I'll give that to cut off since that was the year I graduated. I graduated college, not Ivy League, but, you know, I think it actually is a point against you.

Starting point is 00:42:01 I think it actually works against you if you have a degree from one of these universities because I'm going to assume that you are just, your brain is infested with one. with brain worms, like that you have a terrible worldview and that you might actually be stupid in some really, really important ways. Like you probably, probably don't have a low IQ, but I am actually going to assume that you are unable to discern truth from a lie if you graduated from some of these universities. You would have to prove to me otherwise. But gone are the days, I think, where you're able to say, I went to Harvard, I went to Yale, and that it's just assumed that you are actually smart. It certainly shouldn't be assumed that you're wise in any way or that you're competent. So that's what's happening is that these presidents and honestly, like the ridiculous diversity schemes of these universities are bringing the universities into disrepute. I think America is much better off if we regard these Ivy League universities as just centers for communism training rather than centers of serious intellectual debates and intellectual formation.

Starting point is 00:43:29 So that's what's happening. That's what's happening in academia right now, which again, it's pretty sad, but at the same time, maybe it leads us to a better, a better. place where we just ignore the track altogether of having to go from high school to college and trying to get into these Ivy League universities. And instead pursue things that actually build character and that actually make you smarter and more competent and more productive and responsible citizens. Like that would actually be amazing if instead of sending our kids to these incubators for progressivism, that they could actually go out into the world and learn real life principles and how the world actually works. I think that would make them a lot

Starting point is 00:44:13 smarter and, of course, more conservative because that's how it goes. All right, enough depressing stuff. Let's take a little bit of a white pill, if you will. That means look at something that's positive, something that was surprisingly positive to me. And this is a rare the cut W, a rare W for the cut, which is an online outlet that typically leans progressive as most do. And here is the headline. Don't let climate anxiety stop you from having kids. What? What? Don't let climate anxiety stop you from having kids. Game changer for me. I was so scared of global warming. I was going to stop it. I don't know. Kid number seven. Now I'm going to keep going. And here's the subheading. The battle to save the planet shouldn't be waged over the bodies of women. Agree. Agree. Antinatalism is a huge.

Starting point is 00:45:08 huge movement right now. A huge movement. In fact, like, if you look at any popular video on Instagram, something that's gone viral that's gotten a lot of traction and it's about kids or about motherhood or anything like that, like if you look at the comments, the comments are all, this is so irresponsible. This is so terrible. I'm so glad I'm never having kids. This seems awful. I can't believe you have to go through this inconvenience. I can't believe that you have to wake up early. I can't believe that you have to stay up late. I can't believe that you have to like do blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. All of these selfish, vapid people commenting on someone's choice to have children. That is like the growing sentiment. And it's because we're told we need to be

Starting point is 00:45:52 scared of climate change. It's because we are told that we need to be scared of the fall of democracy because of scary Christian nationalism, fascism. It's because we're told the most important thing that you can do is love yourself and be happy and be comfortable and never inconvenience to yourself. It's because we're told being a girl boss is more important and more fulfilling than having children, all kinds of reasons. I mean, fundamentally, it's godlessness. It is the created order, the natural order being inverted. That is where really the antinatalist movement is coming from. It's coming from Satan who hates children and hates the family and hates marriage. That's where it's coming from.

Starting point is 00:46:36 That's where these comments are coming from whether they know it or not. And so imagine my shock when I see a headline like this from a generally progressive outlet. Okay, so here's what the article says. Anya Kamenitz, who's writing focuses on the climate crisis and how people are responding and says she had coffee with a friend in her early 30s who told her most people her age are resigned to never have kids because of the climate. And then she says, as a mother of two, I have to confess that when I read pieces arguing against having children for the sake of the planet or hear these arguments, it feels like a slap in the face. I wanted to ask my friend, where does the show of concern

Starting point is 00:47:24 leave my kids? Not to mention your nieces and nephews and the hundreds of thousands of children being born into this potential hellscape every day. You plan to live out your life, carefree, unbothered by what happens to the planet after 2060 because none of your DNA will be left on it. The author expresses frustration that the conversations that climate scientists and activists have are always about whether to have kids or arguing to not have them and never around those who have already, who have already had them. The hard truth is that parent or no, there is no shirking your responsibility to build a better future.

Starting point is 00:47:59 Here's her response to those questioning whether to have children because of the climate. Having kids is both selfish and self-sacrificing, optimistic and fatalistic because children belong to their parents and to all of us. No, my children don't belong to you at all. There is no future without them or for anyone at all. True? Realizing you can't guarantee your kids is safe and happy life is the hardest truth of becoming a parent. If you decide to have a child, you will see your love for that child is terrifyingly vast,

Starting point is 00:48:29 big enough to hold the whole planet. True, girl. And if you decide not to have a child, I know your love for this fragile world will be no less great. and no less painful. I can predict that this is Anya's path to being red-pilled. What she will realize, and I hope and, well, it seems like this doesn't include her, is that most climate activists are actually anti-human, not just pro-planet, but anti-human. Why don't they address the people who already have kids?

Starting point is 00:49:01 Because a lot of them, I'm not saying all of them, but a lot of them hate those kids. They see humans as people who drain our resources, as a problem, as a burden. And actually, they are okay with thinking of the planet being human free, being free of civilization, free of people to suck resources. There's like this very romantic vision of us going back to some tribal time, this idea that Native Americans and all indigenous people that they had this beautiful. beautiful relationship with nature and with each other and everything was peaceful and awesome until the mean white man came along and civilized everything and capitalism and all that stuff. There is this mentality that if we just got rid of all this, if we just got rid of humans, then things would be better. That is what is driving the anti-natalist movement. And maybe Anya doesn't

Starting point is 00:50:00 realize that, but that is the ideology that's underneath it. And I hope that, things are beginning to become more clear for her. I hope that she is starting to open her eyes to what this movement is. People weren't buying it, by the way, in the comments. She, some people, I mean, some people are funny. Who wrote this big child? What they're trying to say is like, you know, like big government, big corporations, big tech, big child, like some kind of entity that is,

Starting point is 00:50:35 pushing propaganda. So someone also said capitalism scared by the idea of a dwindling workforce. A lot of people are accusing her of saying, oh, we just need kids because of capitalism. Someone else echoing that sentiment, forget about the planet. Who will work the minds if you don't have children?

Starting point is 00:50:59 Someone said, is this propaganda? Someone else. Respectfully, shut up. someone else. Let's be honest, having kids is not this big selfless act that you do for the betterment of the world as many parents make it out to be. Parents are building a mini-me who will propagate their genetics, beliefs, and name into the world in future. It's inherently self-centered. Okay, you're right. You, person who spends your entire time consuming and thinking about yourself, you're the selfless one. I'm not saying that you have to have children

Starting point is 00:51:31 to be compassionate and selfless and productive. But to say that being a parent is being selfish is just wrong. It's just wrong. It grows your compassion and your empathy and your understanding and your love. And yes, your stake in the future so much. It helps you care about the planet. Not in the same way that climate activists do, but it helps you care about the future.

Starting point is 00:51:53 Because you have a stake in it. It's because this person, these people that you love more than anything else in the whole universe are going to be there. So you care much more than you do if you are, if all you can think about is your own life and your own comfort and your own well-being. So good job the cuts. Keep going this direction. Become a pro-natalist activist. That's what we should be.

Starting point is 00:52:21 But also caring about how these children are conceived and the ethics surrounding that and reproduction. pro-life when it comes to children, unborn children, encompasses more than abortion. I don't mean that in the progressive sense that it's got to cover immigration and justice issues and all of this, but it is all about the dignity of children, of unborn children. And we have to care about that and be thoughtful about that. All right. That's all I've got for today. We will be back here tomorrow with much more. Hey, this is Steve Day.

Starting point is 00:53:10 If you're listening to Allie, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true about God, humanity, and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort. We ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular. This is a show for people who want honesty over hype and clarity over chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where we are or where we're headed, you can watch this D-Day show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us.

Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 921 | To the Texas Mom Suing to Abort Her Baby

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.