Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 933 | DEBATE: Should We Ban Surrogacy? | Guest: Clarkson Lawson

Episode Date: January 15, 2024

Today we're joined by conservative commentator Clarkson Lawson to debate the issue of surrogacy and theocratic conservatism. We start off with a discussion on surrogacy and the ethics surrounding it. Is surrogacy ever justified, and what are the issues we need to consider before condoning it? We look at how much more liberal countries have banned surrogacy and what this might mean when it comes to ethics. We also debate whether pro-life means pro-conception by any means possible and how important the mother-baby bond actually is. Then, are religious theocratic conservatives ruining the GOP, or is the foundation of Christianity necessary for conservatism to exist at all? --- Timecodes: (00:58) Intro to surrogacy issue (05:10) Capitalism of surrogacy (09:48) Allie’s position / “will to live” (15:50) Ethical consequences / mother-baby bond (29:30) Gay couples and surrogacy (39:00) Gifts vs. rights (42:11) Are religious theocratic conservatives ruining the GOP? --- Today's Sponsors: We Heart Nutrition — nourish your body with research-backed ingredients in your vitamins at WeHeartNutrition.com and use promo code ALLIE for 20% off. Naturally It's Clean — visit https://naturallyitsclean.com/allie and use promo code "ALLIE" to receive 15% off your order. If you are an Amazon shopper you can visit https://amzn.to/3IyjFUJ, but the promo code discount is only valid on their direct website at www.naturallyitsclean.com/Allie. Jase Medical — get up to a year’s worth of many of your prescription medications delivered in advance. Go to JaseMedical.com today and use promo code “ALLIE". The Real Story of Colony Ridge — Glenn Beck traveled to the quickly evolving Liberty County, Texas to give you The Real Story of Colony Ridge. Subscribe now for $30 off a BlazeTV annual subscription by visiting BlazeOriginals.com and use code “COLONY RIDGE.” --- Other Debates: Ep 612 | DEBATE: Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice Christian | Guest: Brandan Robertson https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep-612-debate-pro-life-vs-pro-choice-christian-guest/id1359249098?i=1000559757838 Ep 642 | DEBATE: Is Public School 'Grooming' a Conspiracy Theory? | Guest: Dr. Scott Coley https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep-642-debate-is-public-school-grooming-a/id1359249098?i=1000569820197 Ep 600 | DEBATE: Is Death Row Inmate Melissa Lucio Innocent? | Guest: Rep. Jeff Leach https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep-600-debate-is-death-row-inmate-melissa-lucio-innocent/id1359249098?i=1000557642012 --- Buy Allie's book, You're Not Enough (& That's Okay): Escaping the Toxic Culture of Self-Love: https://alliebethstuckey.com/book Relatable merchandise – use promo code 'ALLIE10' for a discount: https://shop.blazemedia.com/collections/allie-stuckey

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. Are theocratic Christians ruining the Republican Party and is surrogacy really as bad as I say it is? We are debating this today with a conservative political commentator who is also gay and notably. less conservative, I would say, on many issues than I am. And we are talking today and I rather heated discussion about some of the issues that I just listed. But hopefully you get a lot out of it.

I do think it was a productive conversation. You are going to be able to see either side of the surrogacy issue. This episode is brought to you by our friends at Good Ranchers. Go to Good Ranchers.com. Use code Alley at check out. That's Good Ranchers.com. Code Alley. Clarkson, thanks so much for taking the time to join us. Could you tell everyone who you are and what you do? Yeah, my name is Clarkson Lawson. So I am a, I guess, aspiring political commentator. I'm kind of on the up and up, I would say.

But it's been just about two years of me doing social media, and I'm transitioning into it full time now. Okay, gotcha. And I first saw you or your tweets when you commented, I think, on the issue of surrogacy. Now, this is something that I'm talking about. about a lot. I am against surrogacy and we do not, we don't fall in line. Let me, let me, let me read your tweet that I first came across. This is human trafficking. No one is, or, okay, so just

for the people listening, you're quoting this. This is human trafficking. Your response is, no one is participating against their will. You quote, babies are not for sale. You respond. Okay, so you're against adoption too. You quote, this is unnatural. Your response. is not everything that is natural is deemed morally right. It comes naturally to us to lie, cheat, and steal. Does that mean we should partake in the activity because it's natural? It's God's plan. You quote, your response is, religion is by far the weakest argument you can make when trying to take away people's rights. And then you say pearl clutching theocratic conservatives are what ruin our party. Regardless of what the internet mob says, I can't wait to eventually be a father. And I will love that child better than most straight parents. And so you are gay, I'm assuming, correct? Yeah. Okay. So I would love to just kind of give you the opportunity to expand on this and to tell me your

view of surrogacy and reproduction and what creates a family. Yeah. And I just want to preface this by saying that is clearly an emotionally charged tweet. Going back, would I reword it a little bit? Yes. Do I take my words back? No. Essentially the premise of surrogacy for me is that life is a gift.

and I don't believe that any, you know, preconceived circumstance of that child warrants taking away that gift. And I think a lot of times on the right, we can see very religious theocratic conservatives use the power of government to force ideas onto people, whereas we see that on the left, too. It's just their religion is wokeism, whereas on the right, it's Christianity. And I'll preface that by saying, I think the left is far more dangerous to our country than the religious right. but I do think that given our country who is declining and, you know, being a part of religion, I think that using religion as your sole basis for the argument of what is natural and what is not is what turns people off from our party. Okay.

So you think that being anti-surrogacy is kind of a theocratic tyrannical position, correct? For most. Now, it depends. It depends on where you base your argument. If you base your argument of, well, it's against what God designed for us, then yes, I would say that's a theocratic argument. If you bring logic and reason, I may disagree with it, but I'm not going to say that's a theocratic argument. It all depends on the stance that you take. Okay. Several countries ban surrogacy.

America is really the Wild Wild West when it comes to the reproductive industry, when it comes to IVF, when it comes to embryo adoption, when it comes to putting embryos on ice. And certainly when it comes to surrogacy, most countries, including liberal countries like Canada are far more restrictive when it comes to surrogacy. And I don't think anyone could logically argue that these are theocratic countries. And so there are other reasons. No, you're absolutely right. There are other reasons why people oppose surrogacy that don't have to do with God. Although I think, of course, that's a good, that's a good reason.

That's, of course, the reason that the founders have granted the rights that we do because we are all created by a God who has endowed us with certain inalienable rights. And that, of course, is not led to us being a theocracy, but has actually led to us being a free country. So I disagree with this idea that if you start with God, then you are some kind of theocratic tyrant. But I also disagree that God is the only reason why someone would oppose surrogacy when you look at kind of the exploitative practice that it is when it comes to women and children. But go ahead. Okay. So the first thing I want to visit is the countries that ban surrogacy.

You're saying you're framing surrogacy or being anti-surrogacy as a conservative stance. But the fact is that you just admitted that these countries are very liberal. No, I didn't say that they were a conservative stance necessarily. I just don't think that they're a bad stance or certainly not a tyrannical, theocratic stance. Right. But the thing is, is Canada doesn't ban altruistic surrogacy. They ban surrogacy in the stance because they don't want capital involved in the service.

So first off, the only reason Canada, it's not because they think surrogacy is bad, it's because they believe that capital essentially corrupts the practice. And that is an anti-capitalist stance. Just because capital is involved in an exchange of goods and services doesn't automatically make it corrupt. Second of all, these countries that have surrogacy banned were the same countries that were lining up their citizens to force them to get a shot. They clearly don't respect bodily autonomy. So I don't think they're a shining example of what conservative should be believing in. It's not saying that they are shining examples of what conservatives should believe in in all cases.

The point is that it is not necessarily a theocratic tyrannical position to be anti-surrogacy. And I will say just for what you mentioned about capital, 98% of surrogacy cases are for profit. Altruistic surrogacy is not the norm. It is extremely, it is extremely rare that that happens. and being anti-capitalist is not necessary to be against the selling of bodies. And that is part of surrogacy. You can be pro-capitalist. It's not the selling of bodies.

It's the selling of a service. Let me say. You can be pro-capitalism and still think that buying and selling some things is wrong, correct? Does that make me anti-capital? But this is a service. But I think that-cathlet's a lot of some things because it does corrupt it. Like, I think that we would. probably agreed that the capital, the profits that are involved in the manufacturing of some

pharmaceutical product, that it's the capital, it's the money that actually kind of corrupts the process. We understand that pay for play when it comes to politics. That's an anti-capitalist position. That's an anti-corruption position. Yeah, but the whole premise is we can regulate these industries to alleviate some of the potential corruption. I don't think that money is the sole reason for something to be corrupt, just like I don't think guns are the reason for people to shoot. So I don't, I think that surrogacy has a lot of gray areas that we could regulate. But if we're going to go through the path of, okay, this needs to be banned, then we're not even coming to the table looking to solve for the potential corruption that could happen with it. Because if you have a problem with the entire premise of surrogacy, then there's really no point in even having the conversation of, you know, okay, well, how can we alleviate some of this potential corruption?

Because you're not coming to the table with compromise. You're coming to the table with, I don't believe this. This needs to be banned. and that's my belief, and I'm not wavering from that. So I think that, yes, there are a lot of things that we could fix with surrogacy. We could make sure that potential surrogates are more informed in the risks associated with it, making sure that they're legally protected. But I come to the table in politics looking for compromise.

And I think that both sides of this issue need to go into it in order to actually find solutions doing that. Okay, let me explain my position on surrogacy. and then I will give you the opportunity to respond. Because one thing that you said was that when you are paying for the surrogacy process, you are paying for a service, you're not paying for human bodies, but you are paying for DNA. When it comes to two men, for example, you mentioned in this tweet that you would like to become a father. I don't know if you met through surrogacy or through adoption. That's a whole different conversation.

But say it's through surrogacy, you and your partner would have to find an egg donor. And you would be paying for her eggs. You would open a catalog and you would probably pick the egg donor that you think looks best or has the best characteristics that you would want to pass down to your child. And so you are purchasing the DNA, purchasing the eggs from one woman who has to go through a hormonal process, medical process in order to retrieve for eggs. That's one thing. And then you would have to choose a surrogate.

So you would be taking the DNA from the biological mother, implanting that DNA into another woman who would then be gestating that child. And then you are taking that child away from both his biological mother and the mother that he has bonded with for nine months. You are taking him into your arms. And at this point, you are a relative stranger. And so the two bonds with the women that he has already created, his biological bond to his mother and also the physiological bond that we have all created with the women who have carried us, you are ripping that child away from both simply because you want a child. I, think that is the degradation of child's rights. We're not even thinking about, well, what is the bond

that's created? Is it important to have that connection to the biological mother? You are buying DNA from one woman. You are renting the womb of another woman and you are robbing the child of the opportunity to have a relationship either with the woman who carried him or his biological mom. That to me is, yes, unethical. And if we care about children's rights and I think that we should, I absolutely think it's in the interest of the government to intervene. Well, this is operating under the assumption that that child doesn't have the will to live. This child wouldn't be created without surrogacy. Yes, will to live.

What does that mean? Will to live? It's implied consent. Exactly. Because life is a gift. That's the thing, Allie, is that you're saying that this perceived circumstance of the child says that this is the value of this child's life. And since we're going to put them in this position, they don't get to live. You shouldn't have a kid because this is the perceived situation that this child's going to have.

And you're also operating. Yes, perceived because there are plenty of kids from surrogacy who come out and are very great for the process, have great lives, are very happy. But you're disregarding them and saying that, oh, well, because of surrogacy, which we agree. If I go through the process of surrogacy, I want to make sure that my child, because with puppies, we keep them with the biological mother for three months. It's weird to me that you just rip that baby from surrogacy. That to me is weird. And that's one of those gray areas that I'm like, okay, we need to look into this. But to sit here and say that a child is going to be away from their biological mother and father, therefore they should not be born.

It's very weird to me that we don't weigh the cost of benefit ratio and say, yes, even if this child's going to be affected by that, they should be able to live. We should still understand the value of life and the gift that it brings to say that this, circumstance doesn't warrant not allowing them to be created. So we're okay with purposely creating a child. Here's the difference between this and adoption. Adoption, the life has already been created. Okay, it's already there. Adoption is the next best option for parents who cannot, for whatever reason, take care of the child. Maybe they didn't mean to concede the child. Whatever the situation is, these parents feel like they cannot take care of the child. And so adoption can redeem a broken situation. but surrogacy actually purposely creates that broken situation because you're saying, okay, I know this child is going to be raised without a mother.

I know we are going to have to break the bond that that child has not always without a mother. It depends if it's a straight family. Well, we're talking about, we're talking about in the situation that you were commenting on on Twitter. Okay. But you're correct, I guess, in general, if a straight couple uses a surrogate, I'm still against it no matter what. It's not that I'm just picking on gay people. I'm against it no matter what. No, no, no.

I know. I just, yeah. But anyway. So, but in your case, in the case that we're talking about here, where it's two men, you are purposely creating that child, purposely creating that child to take them through a process that you know is going to break a natural bond on purpose. And you're saying, even if we know that that child has a very high likelihood of being somehow negatively impacted by that, that's okay. because, well, I just want to be a dad. I want a child. No, no, it's not. That's not necessarily mean that we are okay with conception by any means possible.

Yes, we are anti-killing children, of course, once they've already been conceived, of course. But that does not mean that I'm okay with every kind of conception. All life is valuable. Kids carry through surrogacy through IVF, of course, I believe are all made in the image of God. That means they have innate worth. That doesn't mean I have to agree with. every form of conception and gestation. 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. Yeah, but you're also assuming that it's automatically a broken situation, which it's not. It is. You are breaking a bond. You're breaking the bond from the biological mother and the surrogate, period. Unless you say, oh, no, I want this biological mother and the surrogate to be a part of this child's life, creating some kind of

strange polycule situation, which I also don't think is healthy. Yes, you are breaking the bond from the moment of conception. You are breaking the bond between this child and his biological mother. That is brokenness. And you're saying that's okay because, well, you want to have kids. I think that children's rights should go above adult's wishes. That's my stance. I think that, but okay, I understand your stance because you're putting, you're assuming that that child is going to look at this situation and that child's what you would describe as a broken home and saying, okay, well, you're being selfish because you want a kid and you're not even thinking about the child and that's not the case. The case is, is that I'm looking at the cost to benefit ratio and I'm

not going to assume that just because my child may not like the fact that they were born out of surrogacy or may be negatively impacted, which we don't even have enough studies to prove that that's true. There are some people who are negatively impacted, but to correlate that with surrogacy and say all children are just bound to have this broken situation. To me, and I'm sure to people who were born out of surrogacy would find that offensive, but that situation doesn't outweigh the benefit of life. And I think it's insane to me that in a country that is, first of all, women are not having children.

So we'll start with that. We're not having children. So we really aren't really in a position to be policing who should and shouldn't have children based off of their perceived circumstance. But I think it's crazy that I'm having. having to sit here and defend the value of life on the conservative side. You know that that's not what's happening. You know that we don't devalue life just because we're anti-surrogacy.

You know that. I know that you know that you devalue it. It's not that you devalue it. It's that you're putting your perceived risks, which aren't even proven because surrogacy hasn't been studied enough. And you're outweighing life with those risks. You're saying that these risks make this life not worth being created. It's not to be just about risks.

because I do think that that would be a little anecdotal, although I do think those anecdotes and those testimonies are absolutely worth listening to and do have weight. I've spoken to on this couch several people who have been born via sperm donation, egg donation, via surrogacy. And here's what they would say. And I'm not saying, and they would not say, that they are speaking for all people in their situation. So you're right about that. There's going to be conflicting testimonies, absolutely. But what I hear from them is true of many people that you will find online. They will say, I love my parents. I love my two dads.

I love my two moms. I love my mom and dad. Whatever, however, they were conceived when it's through these ways. And, you know, I had a good life. And yet, I always wanted to know who my mom was, who the woman was who carried me, who my dad was if they were born via sperm donation. And I was left without that. I have to go to the doctor.

and I don't have half of my medical history because of that. I always wanted to know how my mom, the egg donor or the surrogate, could have sold me to people. And even though, yeah, the two people who raised me, sure, they wanted me, but they would say my conception was being sold, was being put into a test to by someone who just wanted money. And whether we know it or not, all of us want to know who we are and where we come from. This is a very essential need. And yes, surrogacy breaks that. It breaks that bond. So whether or not someone has come to terms with how you're conceived or come to terms

that whether or not someone has that testimony, we are taking away a right in principle of someone to be raised by in certain situations a mom and a dad, but also to know who they are and from where they come. We are taking that away from children. And the fact that we don't know the consequences of it is not a good justification for saying, well, we should just go on with it anyway. Well, no, actually it is because in a free country, you have to prove why something should be illegal before you make it illegal. It is. We can take away someone's rights before we prove that there is consequences to it. I mean, you could say, well, let's take away the right to free speech. Let's take away these rights.

And then we'll see if there's consequences to it. And then we can work backwards. No, whenever we go from, whenever we go from, what is? natural. I'm talking biologically natural. What is natural to what is possible? We always have to ask questions. What is being lost here? What are the ethical consequences? What are the repercussions to this? Before we make that leap, but we've already made the leap. We've gone from what's natural to what's possible via technology. And we're not even asking, is this ethical? Is this moral? What is the consequence on a child here? And so we're just going ahead because, again, we can, care more about what adults want than what children need. That is wrong to me. Now, first, there are studies of surrogate children that, but I'm not going to be the one to say,

okay, well, these are the studies that work because they're small. And I'll be honest about that. They are small. But the point that I'm trying to make is that in a free country, you have to prove why something should be illegal before you make it illegal. It is on you to prove. And these situations that you're bringing up where kids are longing to see their biological mother and their father, I get that. And if I do go down this path, I'm going to understand that. And I think 100% transparency, even if it was illegal to lie to your child about where they come from, I would be okay with that. That's a gray area that I think we can reform because every child does deserve to know where they come from. However, to say that that trauma is the result of a bond separated at

birth rather than the result of poor parenting and not being transparent with your child, to me it's a fallacy. You can't say that trauma. What's fallacious about it? Do you not see how that could be traumatic? And also, there are plenty of studies about the primal wound. Even when it comes to adoption, which I am for. And I think that's a beautiful situation.

There is still a primal wound that happens when a baby is separated from his mother. The difference between adoption is, again, that redeems a broken situation, whereas surrogacy, egg donation, you're purposely creating that situation and breaking that bond. And so it's not, this is not like a religious or superstitious belief that I have. There's also this study. There's a 2011 study. This is not even about surrogacy. But there are so many studies like this.

This is maternal separation stresses the baby. Research finds. Researchers measured heart rate variability in two-day-old sleeping babies for one hour each during skin-to-skin contact with mother and alone in a cot next to the mother's bed. Neonatal autotonic activity was 176% higher and quiet sleep, 86% lower. during maternal separation compared to skin-to-skin contact. Now, let's extrapolate the principle that we see here. We are causing purposeful stress to a child of a surrogate by taking them away from the

heartbeat, the smell, the sound, and the feel of the woman that they have bonded with for nine months. The question is for how long? Because we agree there. We agree there. Why is that the question? Okay, so if it's for six months, for six years. Because it's the same. Don't you see how, but you are playing.

You are saying that this. child has to carry an unnecessary burden, whether it's for 24 hours or 24 minutes or 24 years. Why? Because parents decided that they want it. You are forcing a child to carry a burden of stress. We're talking about a scientific response to the mother. And the question is, is that we need to figure out when that is okay. If we studied it and it says, okay, this traumatic response lasts six months. I would be okay with saying any surrogate contracts have to be, we have to fit that in. But do you know why? Do you know why Clarkson that that's not happening?

I know why. Why? Yeah, because I'm sure there are lobbyists in the IVF industry that don't want those studies to happen, which I disagree with. No, but I'm not saying. Right now, it is not legal for a surrogate to hold her baby after for six hours or six months. Do you know why? Can you think about why that is?

because I'm sure because I'm sure the mother will have some an attachment to that child. Why do you think that is? Clarkson. Why do you think that is? Because we what are you, you're talking like I didn't just hear the study you read because clearly there's a bond between the child and the mother. I'm not denying that.

Right. I'm not denying that. I'm just saying. That's why we treat these babies worse than we treat puppies or kittens because there is a, but you're talking about the mother, not the baby. We need to. Both.

Okay. But you're talking about the mother. I'm talking about the baby. We need to figure out because the mother can sense to the process. That's the truth. If you consent to it in the same way that a coal miner consents to risking their life every day, if somebody enters into a surrogacy contract, and a lot of mothers find tremendous purpose in this, first of all,

so I don't want to negate the surrogate mothers. But you can't sit here and say that, oh, well, that bond automatically equals surrogacy being wrong. And I don't think that's true. I think we need to study and figure out the best possible outcome for the child, and then relay that information to the mother. And if a mother with the right to bottle of the autonomy chooses to enter into one of those contracts, they should be informed on it. I don't think it should be banned, but I don't disagree with you. I think that there are ethical concerns with how the industry currently is working, but I don't think that those ethical concerns right now warrant a complete and entire ban on the practice.

Why not? Why do you think that it is ethical or should be legal to cause that kind of bond separation in known suffering and stress to a child in their earliest hours? Why is that not sufficient to say, you know, as many other countries have, to take a step back and say, you know what, children do have rights. And we don't get to treat them worse than we treat puppies or kittens. And we need to start respecting their rights. They're rights. They're right. when it comes to how they're conceived, how they're gestated, how they're bought and purchased, not even to mention the whole IVF process, which is inherent in surrogacy that causes embryos to be indefinitely placed on ice. Like the pro-life position is that these are human beings and human beings should have human rights. And I believe that children have a right to their mother. They have a right to their mother.

And I don't see the justification for taking that away just because adult have decided that they want a child? I don't think that, I think that you're assuming that you're taking something away from a child that would not even have the opportunity to live without it. There are parents, straight parents, who can never conceive. And you're saying that I just, I don't understand how this perceived circumstance, which is clearly, as we both agree, not studied enough.

I don't understand how we can say that this child is going to what you, You're saying is all, you know, you're assuming that this child's going to be in this situation. We're breaking this bond. Therefore, this child shouldn't be lived. Rather than let's alleviate that situation, let's figure out a way to scientifically make sure that this can be avoided, which is the position I'm taking. I'm saying we need to look into this and figure out how we can avoid this. You're saying, this is the situation. This child shouldn't be born.

I don't understand that. It's not that I don't think that the child should be born. It's that I don't believe that the child should be conceived with this intention. So I'm not talking about taking a life. I'm talking about not creating a life. Yeah, but a child can't, they can't be conceived. Yeah, with the purpose of robbing them all that so important physiological bond that we create with mothers. When it comes to the redefinition of families, I'm sure that we also disagree on that.

Marriage is between has long been before the establishment of the United States, an institution between, a man and a woman, not only because of the creation order that we read in the Bible, but also because it is the only natural child-creating institution that exists, and in that it is unique. And you are, I'm guessing, of the position that it is okay for two men or two women to raise a child via sperm egg donation, whatever, in the same way that it would be okay for a man and a woman to do that. Correct. And you don't see any...

Now, we do agree, though, with the marriage, though. Now, the only reason I would be for civil unions, right, between a man and a man and a woman and a woman. Because the term marriage, I don't really care about, if I'm being honest. It's more about, for me, the benefits of having a spouse and creating that union. I think in 1996, when the government chose to define marriage, that's when now they have to define it equally. And if the government would have stayed out of marriage, I wouldn't be saying, oh, I should be allowed to get married. If there were no incentives by the government for marriage, I would say, you know what, marriage, that is a Christian institution. It's not something I need to be a

part of. I don't need to take that away from Christians. But because the government is now involved in it, they have to apply it equally. So we agree there. Where we disagree is whether or not, you know, two dads and two mothers can raise a child. But I will say that we can find some common ground there because my definition of marriage is obviously different than yours. But it's just not something that I'm tied to or that I genuinely care about. I just want the benefits of it. But you do support two men's ability to buy the eggs of one woman and rent the womb of another woman and raise a child, not even talking about adoption.

I do. I do, again, think that's another conversation to have. And obviously, I take issue with the stance that you just said that you assent to, that you agree to. Do you have a mom and a dad? I do. Do you have a good relationship with them? I do.

Do you think that your mom could be replaced by your dad? Are they the same? No, obviously not. Do you think that your mom brought something different to the table than your dad did? Yeah, they're two different people. Are you thankful to have a mom? Is that on the basis of sex? Absolutely.

Or is it on the basis of two different individuals? Both, probably, don't you think? There's things that you go to. your mom too. Yeah. And so you would be taking that away from a child. You would be saying, I got a mom and I got the benefit of my mother's love and I get the benefit of my mother's nurturing and comfort. But a child that I'm going to raise, you have to have purchased two women in order to even have that child. You are robbing that child of the ability to have the mother's love that you so benefited from. What do you think about that? Well, it has to do with what

exactly are women not capable of, that men are capable of and vice versa. The mother's love argument, yeah, absolutely. I think having a feminine figure in a child's life is very important. But I don't think that the, again, the perceived or the situation that a child is brought up in warrants whether or not it should be conceived. And I won't say born. I'll say conceived. I think that there are situations that are out of our control, but I don't think that the

solution is saying, okay, well, don't procreate, don't re-precreated, don't re-reporting. produce because this is the situation you're creating for a child. I think that the human spirit is something that can overcome anything. And I don't think that a life should not be brought into this world because of, again, a circumstance. I think that we have done a lot of studies on kids that are born out of poverty. But I would never tell a woman who is poor not to create a child. I wouldn't do it because I understand the gift of life. So again, you're bringing up these circumstances that a child may or may not be affected from. We don't know for sure because this is an individual child who is responsible for their own decision making, their own thinking.

And you're saying, well, you shouldn't bring this child into the world because this is what they're going to go through. And to me, I'm saying the gift of life is far more important than looking at the situation the child's going to be born into. It's not only what they're going to go through. I do think it's wrong to deprive a child of a mother and a father. And it's not because I think that you wouldn't be a great dad. I'm sure that you would love your child and be an awesome dad. It's not about that. It's that you can't be a mother and that I could never be a father. And, you know, as someone with three kids, I see the differences between my husband and I, not just because we have different personalities and we're different individuals, but because of what we bring to the table. Because of what our bodies are capable of doing. My husband is capable of doing things with our kids. that I'm simply not able to do. And it's not, we're not interchangeable and we're not replaceable. And I think science tells us something about not just how we're created, but also what we need as individuals, not just when it comes to a mother and a father, but also where we come from, where we get our traits from.

That is why there is a book called primal wound. It's actually about adoption, but I certainly think it applies here, that when that separation happens from your genetics, when that separation happens from the woman who carried you or the woman who conceived you who basically sold half of your DNA through egg donation, then there's a wound that occurs there. There's also this study that I saw from Indiana University and Purdue University. This is 2018. And the results were this. When a baby is taken from its mother for even a brief period early in life. This is a traumatic event that significantly alters the future adult function of the brain according to a new animal model study. These changes in the brain are similar to

disturbances in brain structure and function that are found in people at risk for neuropsychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia. So again, we're saying, sorry baby, we're going to place this risk. It's not guaranteed, but we're going to place this risk on you because we just want a child. Again, I think that children's rights to a mother and a father and to natural conception matter more. I think that they matter more than our wants. It's not saying that their lives aren't valuable. In the same way that someone who is conceived via rape, their life is valuable. They're just as worthy and as valuable as you or I are.

We can celebrate their life while still critiquing how they were conceived, right? Okay. But you're trying to conflate children coming from rape. There's no conflation. You know, I know that you're smarter than that Clarkson. You are, you know that that's exactly what you're doing. No, it's a principle that you can conceive or you can critique conception while still celebrating someone's life. You can critique it, absolutely.

But you're not just critiquing it. You're saying that this child should not be conceived. Just like I think, just like I think that a. I think that a rape shouldn't happen, but I can celebrate if a life is produced from that rape. I can also say, wow, I celebrate this life of this person who is conceived via exonation and surrogacy, but I critique and I'm against how this person was conceived. That, of course, is possible. Yeah, but you're saying that it's not possible?

Yeah, but no, I'm not saying it's not possible because I'm, I myself. You should critique surrogacy and I've, yeah, which is, hey, that's not true. I've, no, no, no, I've, I've critiqued it. I'm not trying, I wasn't trying to say that. just saying we don't agree in what is in what is wrong with it you're right you have you have critiqued it i'm just saying i have you don't think that that is worthy of the same criticism that i'm giving it but go ahead i just don't i think the the fundamental difference between our two stances is that it's not that we necessarily disagree on some of the ethical problems with surrogacy it's that i don't think

those ethical problems right now warrant a ban on surrogacy because i value the gift of life of that child over any, those circumstances that you mentioned. It's not that I don't feel for the child that wants to know who their biological parents are. It's not that I don't understand the stance that you're taking. It's that I think the gift of life is something that far outweighs what we spoke about today. And I am totally for having conversations of some of the things that can change in the surrogacy industry. I'm all for that. And before I even enter this process, if I do, that's something that I'm going to have to sit with and really look at.

And that I'll talk about on my platforms. But I think the difference here is that you're taking issue with some of the same things that I take issue with. And you're saying, well, this warrants a ban. And I'm saying, well, this warrants further discussion. And I think that that's really just the difference between our two stances here. Child, children are a gift. They're not a right. You don't pay for a gift.

I think you know that. And when it comes to surrogacy, we're renting wombs, we're buying eggs. That's not a gift. That's saying, I have a right to this. And whatever. The life itself is a gift. Yeah, the life is a gift, but you're buying that. To that life.

Not to me. I'm not talking about a gift to me. I'm talking about a gift to that child. That me being alive is a gift for me. That child being alive is a gift to that child. Well, by that logic, that's the gift I'm talking about. We can't conceive any, we can't critique any kind of conception. It's not about not curtail.

But that's the thing. But that's basically your logic. If it's just, okay, life is a gift, no matter what, okay, well, there's a lot of people who are conceived in a lot of sketchy ways that I think we should be able to critique. I never said no matter what. That's my position. That's my position. Well, that's what you're saying, though. And we agree.

No, it's not. And that's more important than any of the potential risks that you are placing, psychological risk that you're placing psychological risk that you're placing psychological risks. That's what you've said. I'm saying that those psychological risks, yes, that life, that. when we do the cost of benefit ratio, those psychological risks and the gift of life, the child's gift, not my gift, the child's gift outweighs that. Now, I'm not saying it can't be critiqued. You're saying that I'm saying, oh, well, we can't critique anything. That is not what I'm saying at all. All I'm saying is that in the case of surrogacy, when we talk about the risks and we

talk about all of these different ethical discussions, right now, my current stance with what we've talked about today is that that child being gifted to live outweighs the risks that, you know, are associated with its conception. I'm not saying it can't be critiqued. And I'm not saying that other forms of conception can't be critiqued. I would be insane to say that because then we go back to the rape example and I'd be like, oh, okay, well, rape's fine. That's not what I'm saying. But I just, I think we're getting a little bit misconstrued on my point here. It's, It's a simple cost to benefit ratio. And I think that not for me, but for the child, it is a gift.

Okay. Gotcha. And we will have to just settle on disagreeing there. I think that we've both probably made our points. The last thing that I want to, that I want to talk to about that you mentioned in your tweet, that you think basically kind of, I don't know if you said Christian conservative. So I'm not trying to put words in your mouth in the same way that I wasn't trying to say that you said that we can't critique anything.

because I understand. That's not your position that we can't critique anything. That Christian conservatism maybe is ruining the Republican Party. Is that what you said? Or can you clarify that? Religious, theocratic conservatives.

Okay. So an example of that would be. I would say this was in the midst. So right before this tweet went out, so I have to give a little bit of backstory as to what that was on the timeline. Because right before this went out, there was, you know, a lot of conservatives

basically spending the whole weekend talking about, you know, how a woman dresses and XYZ, is it, you know, appropriate and all of that because based off of their faith, which is fine. But the reason I said that is because there is a faction of the Republican Party to me that does not respect the free marketplace of ideas. If a good idea isn't adopted by the public, then the person who is explaining that good idea has a messaging problem. You don't get to use the power of government to now force that idea onto people or, you know, otherwise it would be an unpopular idea and nobody would adopt it. It's your job to go back to the drawing board and say, okay, this is why people are not adopting my ideas.

So when I say religious, theocratic conservatives are ruining our party, it's the people who want to use the power of government to force ideas onto people rather than win by sharing those ideas in the free marketplace of ideas, if that makes sense. So it really just comes down to whether or not you believe in using the power of government to force unpopular ideas amongst the public when you have failed at messaging them correctly. Okay, such as? Let's say gay marriage, right? There is a faction of the Republican Party that is against it. And that's fine if you are against it. But rather than arguing in the marketplace of ideas and saying, okay, well, you know, let's, explain why gay marriage is bad for this country.

A lot of times what you'll see on social media is people saying, well, this is what God says, and this is why it's wrong. Now, it would be different if you come at the argument from a logical and reasonable perspective. But if your entire basis of your argument is, well, God said so, then it ends up turning people off from the original argument that you're proposing. So I'm saying the people who are using God as the basis of their argument without logic and reason, not saying you can't use God as the basis of your argument. I'm not anti-religion,

but the people who don't include logic and reason, I don't think you're one of them, because you are very logical and reasonable. I think that they are what is ruining our party because their ideas are not explained fully, and then it turns people off, and we're increasingly becoming, you know, anti-religious in this country.

So I don't think that there is a future for conservatism unless we figure out how to propose our ideas without using God as the sole reason for them. Do you see a lot of that? I really don't see a lot of Republicans just saying, well, the Bible says so and so this is law. I do. And maybe I see more of it just because I'm kind of like in a conundrum being, you know, gay. I get a lot of it all the time because people are like, oh, you're not conservative. You have no place in our party, X, Y, Z.

So maybe I get more of the far right. But I'm not saying that it's a majority. I think that both sides, I think they're the left, their religion is identity. It's wokeism. And the right, the religion is Christianity. Both can be abused. I just don't think, you know, anybody who is going into an argument so ideologically bound and not looking for compromise is good for a movement at all, whether that's the left or the right. Here's the thing that I always go back to.

I think I used to be of the position that it doesn't really matter what someone thinks religiously as long as we can agree on basic principles like free speech and things like that. And I do still believe that, okay, I'm going to link arms with some people that I may not agree with on everything because we do agree on some things. So, for example, I wouldn't call myself a feminist, but there are feminists out there who believe in women's rights and don't believe that men should be in women's spaces and on women's sports teams. And I might link arms with them because we're fighting the same battle. Or there may be someone who disagrees with me on the subject of social justice, but they're also pro-life. So maybe I'll link arms with them on that. But I do think when it comes to why we believe what we believe as conservatives, that God plays a key role in that and that it actually has to. No, absolutely.

And the founders believed to that. I mean, ultimately what it came back to in the Declaration of Independence, the reason why we have inalienable rights, the reason why the establishment of this government was so radical, the reason why we ended up leading the charge against things like slavery and so many infringements upon human rights was because of this belief that we were made by God. his image and that these rights that we have were actually given to us by him. So without that, without that foundation, without the belief that we were given our rights by a creator, then of course the government being the highest power that there is has the right to give and take away our rights. So I don't think it's wrong. I don't think it's erroneous that conservatives do harken back to creation, the creator, God to say, well, here's the person who created all. things. Here's the person who gave us rights. Here's the person who has given us the groundwork of

right and wrong. That's different than saying, oh, I think that we should establish all Old Testament law in America today, which I'm sure there are people out there like that. I just don't think that there are very many. What I, what I just don't want to happen because I see a lot of people on the kind of the secular right doing this is saying that we can never appeal to God or we can never use God in our arguments or God doesn't give us the basis of morality. I've never heard someone explain where else the basis of morality is or give me a logical conclusion for where rights come from or like what is the foundation of conservatism if it's not God? I don't know. And so that's, that would be my argument is that that kind of right. And I don't just agree. I don't I don't,

I don't disagree with you. I think that religion should be a foundation in honestly anybody's life. I grew up Christian and it has instilled a lot of values into me that I'm very grateful for. My problem is that when you're building a foundation, you don't stop there. And I think a lot of times on both sides, but we're specifically talking about the right, that foundation is there, but then nothing else is added to it. And I think that God, if we're going to talk in the presence or talk with God, I think that he has his law for a reason. And that reason can be justified with logic and reason.

So it is your job as somebody who is representing the Christian, right, which you do very well, to showcase that logic and reason and not just fall back on that foundation and say, well, this is what the book says. And this is why we have to believe it. So it's not that I think that Christianity doesn't have a place in society or on the right. I think that without religion, a democratic society will crumble. If I'm being honest, I don't believe in merging those two powers because they're very powerful. powerful institutions, but I'm not against religion. I just think that when you have that foundation, you have to build on it in order to convey your message to people who wouldn't otherwise buy it.

And that's why I said it's what's ruining our party, because a lot of people are not conveying that message well. And I agree with a lot of the stances that you take, which is why I'm a conservative. But I see as somebody who is not particularly religious, these messages being pushed out, and I'm not buying them. I'm not seeing, you know, the logic and reason behind it. So the other side sure as hell isn't, you know. Yeah.

I mean, there's got to be people on our side, though, that reminds us of the foundation. Because you're right, you do build upon a foundation, but you can't take away the foundation and then still. No, yeah. Absolutely. Like my view is that actually, like I wouldn't go so far as to say as any one kind of person is ruining our party. I think that we all do kind of when it comes to politics, when it comes to culture wars,

we do kind of all have our different roles to play. Like my role is that I'm going to stake us over here on the right. There's going to be a lot of people to my left. But I am going to be someone who tries to remind us of where that foundation is. And that's why conservatism is difficult, by the way. Progressivism, everyone has their own mallet, their own, you know, like wrecking ball. They're just trying to destroy. That's really easy to do.

You can do that without agreement. But on the conservative side, we're actually trying to build something. That's a lot more difficult. You've got your own tools. I've got different tools. And we actually have to agree on what the foundation is. What I would disagree with, I think in your tweet, is that religion has no place in law. Well, that just can't be true because law. I mean, I didn't say religion has no place in law. Okay. Go ahead. Yeah. No, I said that religious theocrats are what destroy our party. I didn't say has no place in law. There's a very big difference there. Yeah. I would agree that there's a very big difference there. I would say, okay, for. someone who would say that then for someone who would say that religion has no place in law some people erroneously use you know separation of church and state um i i would just say that all law flows from morality and all morality flows from what you believe about who we are why we're here and where we come from it's actually impossible to separate religion of some kind from

law and so i think what conservatives have to decide on is like okay where does that morality come from like who gave us these rights why do we even have laws why are some things right and something's wrong why are some things illegal or illegal i actually think the conversation we had today is like a really good example of that to people who are disagreeing on where morality comes from and what it is and what it and what it looks like which is okay i think it's important for us to have those discussions and debates but you can go ahead no i mean i i don't necessarily disagree with you on that i think that again when we bring up the found example, yeah, Christianity is the foundation of conservatism. And I think I welcome that. I respect it.

But again, I think that when it comes to government, we have to not use that as a crutch to come to the table and create policy. I think that democratic politics requires compromise. And a lot of times on the right and the left, when you're so bound to ideology, you don't come to the table looking for compromise. And that's the issue that I really see with it is that, you know, our conversation today, again, like you said, is a prime example of that. I think that like, like, when I come to the table, I'm like, yeah, there are problems with surrogacy. Let's look at them. Let's try to compromise and find a solution for it, despite it, you know, personally affecting me, whether or not I have kids, et cetera, et cetera. But whereas, and this may not be you, I'm not going to put words in your mouth, somebody who is very anti-surrogacy doesn't come to the table looking for that compromise and looking for solutions. And I think it's the same conversation with religious fundamentalists as well as, you know, woke activist.

Yeah, some things just deserve to be banned because their risk and their harm is so great. And just the violating principles of someone's rights. Of course, that's where I'm coming from. And in order for there to be compromised, there has to be two different sides. Yeah, there can be people in the middle, but there's nothing to compromise on if there aren't some people who want to ban it. and then some people who want to make it totally legal. No, I agree. Yeah, there has to be two different sides.

But I personally as an individual, don't put myself on either side because I would much rather stand in the middle where the solutions are created than stand on the side where we're screaming on each other. Yeah. I know what's your position that social issues are killing the Republican Party. You've said that. You've said that before. But these social issues, that's what makes or breaks the country, really. These social issues really matter. I mean, surrogacy matters.

abortion matters, children matter, marriage matters. I'm sure that you agree with that. And these culture war things have to happen. And if we're just going to be progressives on them, I'm not saying that you're advocating for that. And the Republican Party dies because of that. Then the Republican Party dies because of that. Then it doesn't, it's not worth staying alive.

We've seen what's happened to Canada and to a lot of European countries when they don't really have a conservative party. The conservative issues, I mean, the culture issues are really like why we even have another party except for the Democratic Party. So I just disagree with you there. Well, it's not that it's not that we're against each other on these cultural issues. I think we would probably agree on 80% of what we're talking about. I think the problem here is that when we're talking, when I'm talking about culture issues, if I'm in a room full of people explaining my opinion and nobody agrees with it, my solution to that is for me to take accountability,

go back to the drawing board and figuring out why my messaging was off. I think that the problem here is that we see a lot of people who will obviously portray their ideas that are not popular within society and then they'll say, okay, well, now we need to use the power of government to force this on to people because they're not buying it. I don't agree with that. I don't agree with bailing out otherwise bad ideas in the marketplace. I think that we have to, if they're good ideas and people aren't buying them, we have to figure out how we can convey that in a way that people will support it using their free will. And I think that's just the really big difference here. Yeah, like a burghapel or burgerfell was forced upon a country that was actually not for

I agree. Yeah, I know you do. I know that you've made that clear, but that is one example, you know, through Fiat. That was something that was forced on a country that at the time didn't want it. Okay, thank you so much. Clarkson, I really do appreciate you taking the time articulating your position. I do think that these debates are really important. And I hope that people get a lot out of it. So thank you so much. Thank you so much for having me. 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.