Abortion Debate in America: Liberty, Life, and the Constitution

Introduction by Robert P. George

When we speak of abortion, we are not merely debating a policy. We are grappling with questions that touch the very foundations of justice, liberty, and human dignity. For centuries, societies have wrestled with how to reconcile individual freedom with the protection of the vulnerable. In America, this struggle has found its sharpest edge in the abortion debate.

The Constitution, our shared covenant, promises both liberty and equal protection. But what happens when those two principles appear to collide? On one side, the claim of autonomy—the right of a woman to govern her own body. On the other, the claim of life—the right of an unborn child to be protected as part of the human family.

In these five conversations, we bring together voices from law, science, politics, and culture to ask the hardest questions:

• What does the Constitution demand of us?
• When does life begin, and what does that mean for our laws?
• How do poverty and inequality shape the choices women face?
• Should abortion be resolved state by state, or at the national level?
• And finally, what moral identity will America leave for future generations?

This is not an argument for slogans or soundbites. It is an invitation to think deeply about who we are, and who we wish to become, as a people bound together by justice.

(Note: This is an imaginary conversation, a creative exploration of an idea, and not a real speech or event)

Topic 1: Abortion and the Constitution — Rights vs. Protections

Moderator: Judge Janice Rogers Brown

Speakers: Laurence Tribe, Helen Alvaré, Robert P. George, Ruth Marcus, Charlie Kirk

Moderator (Judge Janice Rogers Brown):
Thank you all for joining this important discussion. Let’s begin with the heart of the matter. If the Constitution guarantees both liberty and equal protection, does abortion primarily fall under the mother’s right to bodily autonomy, or the unborn child’s right to life? How should courts weigh these competing claims?

Laurence Tribe:
The Constitution’s primary guarantee is individual liberty, and the Court has long recognized bodily autonomy as essential to that. When we elevate the state’s interest in potential life above the woman’s autonomy, we risk creating a hierarchy of persons where the pregnant woman becomes legally diminished. The courts, therefore, must tread carefully and ensure that liberty is not hollowed out under the guise of protection.

Helen Alvaré:
I disagree, Laurence. Liberty without limits becomes license. If unborn life is indeed life—as science clearly shows with brain waves and heartbeats very early on—then equal protection demands its inclusion. We already extend legal protection to vulnerable populations. Why exclude the most vulnerable of all? The courts should weigh unborn life not as potential but as actual, and liberty must be balanced against that.

Robert P. George:
Helen is right. The logic of equal protection demands consistency. Murder laws exist precisely because we recognize that life has inherent dignity, regardless of convenience. If the law acknowledges an unborn child as human, then autonomy arguments must yield, just as autonomy cannot justify harming a newborn or a disabled person. The courts’ role is to preserve justice, not redefine it away.

Ruth Marcus:
But Robert, the reality is that forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy against her will is itself a profound denial of justice. Equal protection should also extend to women whose autonomy has been historically subordinated. The Constitution cannot compel people into involuntary servitude to biology. That’s not liberty; it’s oppression.

Charlie Kirk:
I’d put it this way: our Constitution wasn’t written to protect the strong at the expense of the weak. It was written to establish a moral order where life is safeguarded. The unborn are voiceless, and equal protection means extending justice to them. The mother’s liberty is real, but liberty ends where another’s life begins. Courts must weigh life first because without life, liberty has no meaning.

Moderator (Judge Brown):
Thank you. Now let’s turn to the Dobbs decision. The Court rejected a federal constitutional right to abortion and returned the issue to the states. Should the Constitution be interpreted as “silent” on abortion, leaving it to states, or does it implicitly protect one side—either liberty of choice or protection of unborn life?

Robert P. George:
The Constitution, properly read, does not explicitly grant a right to abortion. What it does guarantee is equal protection and due process, which, when applied honestly, favor the unborn. By returning the issue to the states, Dobbs corrected an overreach but left incomplete business. The logical conclusion is national recognition of unborn rights.

Ruth Marcus:
I see it differently. Dobbs didn’t restore neutrality; it stripped away a half-century of recognized liberty. Silence in the Constitution is not absence of rights—it’s room for interpretation. The Ninth Amendment explicitly tells us unenumerated rights exist. Abortion, tied to privacy and autonomy, fits that category. By declaring “silence,” the Court empowered states to curtail liberty unequally.

Charlie Kirk:
The Founders never envisioned abortion as a constitutional right. Silence should never be twisted into endorsement. Dobbs was right to kick it back to states because the federal judiciary should not be legislating from the bench. That said, I do think one day we’ll need a constitutional amendment to protect life across all states—because freedom without life is incoherent.

Laurence Tribe:
But Charlie, your approach risks destabilizing federalism. If every moral claim leads to constitutional amendments, the balance between national and state authority collapses. Dobbs should have affirmed a national baseline of liberty—states may regulate but not obliterate choice. The Court’s refusal to do so was an abdication of its duty.

Helen Alvaré:
I find Dobbs refreshing because it respects democratic deliberation. Our Constitution works best when people, through their states, hash out deeply divisive issues. While I hope more states will protect unborn life, I recognize that the process of persuasion and legislation is part of constitutional fidelity. Silence doesn’t imply a right to abortion—it implies that citizens must decide.

Moderator (Judge Brown):
Let’s move forward. America remains deeply divided on abortion. If we want the country to stay united, what constitutional framework—federal, state-by-state, or even a new amendment—offers the most stable path forward?

Charlie Kirk:
Ultimately, stability requires moral clarity. I believe the only lasting solution is a federal protection of unborn life, akin to past amendments that secured rights for the disenfranchised. Without that, we’ll see endless patchworks where life is protected in one state and discarded in another. That’s unsustainable for a nation claiming to stand for liberty and justice for all.

Ruth Marcus:
I would argue the opposite. Stability comes from recognizing that pluralism exists in America. Forcing a single national position risks tearing the country apart further. The state-by-state framework, while messy, reflects federalism’s genius—allowing diversity of moral belief without demanding uniformity.

Helen Alvaré:
Ruth, I respect your point, but stability isn’t achieved by tolerating injustice. We didn’t leave slavery to the states, nor should we leave unborn rights to them. Yet I agree persuasion is vital. A national amendment would be the clearest resolution, but it must come through democratic conviction, not judicial fiat.

Laurence Tribe:
I worry both extremes miss the middle. The most stable path is a national baseline protecting liberty, with room for states to add restrictions as long as they don’t strip autonomy entirely. This mirrors how other rights are handled—free speech has limits, but the core right remains national. Abortion should be similar.

Robert P. George:
The Constitution’s ultimate purpose is justice. Federalism is valuable, but it cannot justify systemic injustice. A constitutional amendment recognizing unborn life would resolve the issue morally and legally. Until then, we will live with division—but truth eventually demands national coherence.

Moderator (Judge Brown):
Thank you all. What we’ve heard today reflects the very tension at the heart of the Constitution: liberty versus life, federalism versus national justice. These debates are not simply about policy—they are about who we are as a people, and how we interpret the promises of our founding document.

Topic 2: Science and Personhood — When Does Life Begin?

Moderator: Judge Janice Rogers Brown

Speakers: Charlie Kirk, Dr. Maureen Condic, Dr. Willie Parker, Francis Collins, Judith Jarvis Thomson 

Moderator (Judge Janice Rogers Brown):
Let’s turn to the scientific and philosophical question. Advances in embryology and neuroscience have sharpened the debate. When, in your view, does life begin, and should law and policy directly reflect that moment?

Dr. Maureen Condic:
From a biological standpoint, the answer is remarkably clear. Life begins at fertilization. A new, genetically distinct human organism comes into existence at that point. Embryology textbooks affirm this. While society debates personhood, the science of when life begins is not in dispute. Our laws should reflect this reality rather than deny it.

Judith Jarvis Thomson (voice of her work):
I accept that an embryo may be biologically human. But personhood is not just about biology. My “violinist” analogy illustrates this: even if we grant full humanity, does that obligate a woman to sustain life within her body against her will? Biology cannot alone dictate moral or legal duty.

Charlie Kirk:
Judith, with respect, your analogy reduces children to burdens to be unplugged. If life begins at conception, the law should protect that life. Our Constitution doesn’t grade people on size, location, or dependence. It recognizes rights by virtue of being human. Science tells us when humanity begins; morality tells us to defend it.

Francis Collins:
Science gives us the biological facts—fertilization creates a new genetic entity, heartbeats appear at weeks, brain waves follow soon after. But science alone cannot answer the legal and moral dimensions. The challenge is integrating biological clarity with social compassion. We must acknowledge both truths without absolutism.

Dr. Willie Parker:
Science also tells us something else: viability is a shifting line. What was once impossible at 24 weeks is now survivable earlier due to medical advances. But viability still matters because it marks when the fetus can exist independently. Law should reflect a balance between maternal autonomy and fetal development, not just conception.

Moderator (Judge Brown):
Thank you. Let’s move deeper. If law were to draw a line on personhood, should it be based on conception, viability, or another marker such as brain activity or heartbeat?

Francis Collins:
I’d argue brain activity is a profound threshold. Consciousness, even in its earliest flickers, separates mere biological existence from personal experience. That happens around six weeks. While conception is biologically the beginning, law has often drawn lines at functional thresholds, and brain activity is a compelling one.

Charlie Kirk:
Francis, with respect, that line-drawing is arbitrary. A newborn is not conscious in the sense we mean, yet we protect them. The question isn’t when awareness begins but when life begins. And that’s conception. Viability, brain activity, heartbeat—those are milestones in a life already underway, not the starting point.

Dr. Willie Parker:
Charlie, the problem with your view is it denies the lived reality of women. Drawing the line at conception ignores their autonomy entirely. Viability respects both life and liberty. It’s a balance—once a fetus can live outside the womb, society’s interest in protecting it strengthens, but before that, autonomy must prevail.

Judith Jarvis Thomson:
Exactly. My argument is not about when life begins—it’s about when obligations begin. Even if we grant conception as life, the law must ask whether society has the right to compel one person to sustain another. Viability is not perfect, but it acknowledges limits to coercion.

Dr. Maureen Condic:
But viability is not a scientifically coherent line. It moves with technology and resources. In some hospitals, viability is 22 weeks, in others, 24 or 26. That’s not a moral principle—it’s an accident of geography. The only fixed scientific marker is conception. Anything else is policy convenience, not biological truth.

Moderator (Judge Brown):
One last question. Considering both science and philosophy, what framework should guide America’s future—should policy be grounded in biological fact, moral reasoning, or a blend? And how do we prevent this debate from becoming endlessly polarized?

Dr. Willie Parker:
We prevent polarization by centering compassion. Law must balance science with lived reality. Biology without context reduces women to vessels. Philosophy without biology risks fantasy. The framework must be a blend—one that respects science but also prioritizes justice for women navigating profound choices.

Charlie Kirk:
But Willie, compassion cannot mean denial of truth. The framework should begin with science: life begins at conception. From there, moral reasoning demands protection. We didn’t compromise on slavery by balancing “context.” We recognized a wrong and corrected it. Polarization will end when we align law with truth.

Judith Jarvis Thomson:
Polarization persists because truth is not singular here. Women’s autonomy is as real as embryonic biology. A stable framework must admit competing rights and allow space for choice. Anything else invites authoritarianism. Moral reasoning requires humility, not absolute certainty.

Francis Collins:
I would urge humility as well. Science is clear about biological beginnings, but society must decide how to interpret moral significance. A blended framework—one that acknowledges life’s start at conception while allowing policy leeway for autonomy—might reduce polarization. We must speak truth with compassion, not weapons.

Dr. Maureen Condic:
Yet truth without courage is meaningless. If science tells us life begins at conception, we should have the moral courage to say so in law. Compassion can guide how we support women, but it cannot erase the unborn. A stable framework is one that tells the truth first, then builds compassion around it.

Moderator (Judge Brown):
What we’ve heard tonight is the tension between biological certainty and philosophical obligation. Whether America chooses conception, viability, or autonomy as the guidepost, the real challenge is whether we can create a framework that honors both truth and compassion.

Topic 3: Abortion, Poverty, and Social Safety Nets

Moderator: Judge Janice Rogers Brown

Speakers: Charlie Kirk, Kristan Hawkins, Gloria Steinem, Dr. Kathryn Edin, Tim Keller 

Moderator (Judge Janice Rogers Brown):
The question of abortion cannot be separated from questions of poverty, inequality, and support for mothers and families. Let’s begin here: Does banning or restricting abortion disproportionately harm disadvantaged women, or can social support systems fully replace abortion access?

Gloria Steinem:
Restrictions always fall hardest on women with the fewest resources. Wealthier women will travel, find private care, or circumvent restrictions, but poor women cannot. For them, lack of access means forced continuation of pregnancies they cannot support. Social supports help, but they don’t erase the loss of control over one’s own life.

Charlie Kirk:
Gloria, with respect, that argument assumes abortion is a solution to poverty. It isn’t. Poverty requires justice, not killing children. America already has programs like Medicaid, food stamps, housing vouchers, and adoption systems. If we invested more in these and in strengthening families, abortion wouldn’t be seen as “necessary.” The problem is cultural neglect, not lack of abortion.

Dr. Kathryn Edin:
As someone who has spent decades studying poverty, I’d say both of you touch on truths. Yes, restrictions fall heavily on poor women. But it’s also true that abortion doesn’t solve poverty—it often postpones or reshapes it. What’s needed are robust supports: childcare, housing stability, job pathways. Without those, choice becomes constrained, whether abortion is legal or not.

Kristan Hawkins:
I’ve spoken with thousands of young women who feel pressured into abortion because they lack support. That’s not choice—that’s coercion by circumstance. What they need are resources, community, and encouragement to see motherhood and success as compatible. Abortion preys on fear, while a supportive society should cultivate courage.

Tim Keller:
Scripture compels us to care for the vulnerable—both mother and child. The Christian response is not merely to oppose abortion but to create communities where single mothers, the poor, and the marginalized find safety and provision. Abortion is not the answer; mercy and justice are.

Moderator (Judge Brown):
Thank you. Let’s press further. If society truly wants to reduce abortions while caring for women, what practical policies or systems would best achieve that balance?

Dr. Kathryn Edin:
Policies that stabilize families are essential. Paid family leave, affordable childcare, and access to healthcare can reduce the sense of desperation. Poverty isn’t just about income—it’s about instability. If women can envision a future with stability, abortion rates will fall without coercion.

Charlie Kirk:
I’d add that marriage and family structure matter more than any government program. Policies that incentivize intact families, that reward fatherhood and responsibility, will do more to lower abortion than checks from Washington. That’s the cultural framework missing from this conversation.

Gloria Steinem:
Charlie, you say that as if women who get pregnant outside of marriage don’t deserve autonomy or respect. Paid leave and universal childcare aren’t “handouts,” they’re investments in equality. If we truly value women, we won’t demand they conform to a traditional model—we’ll empower them to thrive in whatever circumstances they face.

Kristan Hawkins:
But Gloria, I’ve seen how abortion clinics sell despair rather than hope. Real choice comes when a woman knows she won’t lose her education, her career, or her dignity by carrying her child. Policies like pregnancy resource centers, flexible education for student mothers, and workplace protections can make that vision real.

Tim Keller:
Both structure and compassion are necessary. Policies must encourage responsibility while also meeting people where they are. Churches, nonprofits, and communities must embody radical generosity. Government can only go so far. What will truly change culture is love—expressed through tangible care for mothers and children.

Moderator (Judge Brown):
For our last round, I want to ask this: How do we keep the abortion debate from collapsing into endless polarization, especially when poverty is used by both sides to argue opposite conclusions?

Charlie Kirk:
Polarization persists because one side treats abortion as liberation and the other as killing. Poverty is real, but we must stop using it as a justification for ending innocent lives. Unity will come when we commit to both protecting life and reforming systems that keep people poor. Those are not mutually exclusive.

Gloria Steinem:
And I’d argue polarization persists because one side refuses to trust women. You can’t build unity by erasing women’s autonomy. Until we center the voices of those most affected—poor women, women of color—we will keep talking past each other. Respect begins with trust.

Kristan Hawkins:
Trust also means telling the truth. Abortion doesn’t erase poverty; it erases children. But I agree unity requires listening. If pro-choice advocates acknowledged the humanity of the unborn, and pro-life advocates doubled down on providing support, perhaps we’d find common ground.

Dr. Kathryn Edin:
What I hear is both sides claiming compassion, but polarization thrives when compassion is conditional. Unity may require incrementalism—working together on policies everyone supports, like maternal healthcare and childcare, even if we disagree on abortion itself. Start with common ground, build trust, then debate the harder questions.

Tim Keller:
Polarization fades when we embody grace. Grace means seeing the mother not as a villain and the unborn not as disposable. It means creating a society where both are valued. The debate will remain, but we can defuse its hostility by modeling compassion and sacrifice, not just rhetoric.

Moderator (Judge Brown):
What we’ve heard tonight is that abortion and poverty intersect in ways that test our compassion and our principles. Whether we emphasize family structure, policy reform, or community care, the challenge is to resist despair and replace it with hope—for women, children, and society alike.

Topic 4: Political Strategy and Abortion — Federal vs. State Control

Moderator: Judge Janice Rogers Brown

Speakers: Charlie Kirk, Ron DeSantis, Gavin Newsom, John Roberts, Kristen Day

Moderator (Judge Janice Rogers Brown):
The Dobbs decision shifted abortion back to the states, but political debate continues over whether abortion should remain a state issue, return as a federal right, or be codified by amendment. Let’s start here: Should abortion be decided at the state level, or should there be a national framework?

Ron DeSantis:
Returning abortion to the states reflects the Founders’ design. States are laboratories of democracy. Florida, for instance, has enacted laws that reflect the values of its citizens. A one-size-fits-all federal mandate—either pro-choice or pro-life—undermines local accountability and the right of states to govern themselves.

Gavin Newsom:
Ron, with all respect, that argument ignores the reality that fundamental rights can’t depend on zip code. Would we allow freedom of speech or racial equality to vary by state? Reproductive autonomy is a core liberty. A national framework is essential because a woman’s rights shouldn’t vanish when she crosses state lines.

Charlie Kirk:
Gavin, you’re comparing unlike things. Speech and equality are about protecting liberty; abortion is about ending life. States should decide, yes—but ultimately, I believe we’ll need a national amendment to protect unborn life everywhere. Until then, state-level battles allow citizens to speak through their legislatures.

Kristen Day:
As a pro-life Democrat, I’d say both sides miss something. We need a framework that reduces abortions while respecting pluralism. That could mean a moderate federal baseline—like prohibiting late-term abortions—while allowing states flexibility. Absolutes will keep us divided; incremental common ground could bring more unity.

John Roberts:
From the Court’s perspective, our role is not to impose morality but to interpret the Constitution. Dobbs made clear the Constitution does not enshrine abortion rights. That doesn’t preclude Congress or the states from acting. The system works best when political branches, not courts, set policy.

Moderator (Judge Brown):
Thank you. Let’s turn to politics. Both parties use abortion as a rallying cry. What risks do Republicans and Democrats face in staking out extreme positions, and how could strategy shape the future of this issue?

Gavin Newsom:
The risk for Republicans is clear: alienating women and young voters. America is moving forward, not backward, and when politicians criminalize abortion, they isolate themselves from mainstream values. Democrats, by contrast, risk looking weak if we don’t defend reproductive rights strongly enough. The danger is in timidity, not extremity.

Charlie Kirk:
I think the risk is reversed. Democrats have tied themselves to abortion-on-demand through all nine months, which is deeply unpopular. Republicans risk sounding uncompassionate if we don’t emphasize support for mothers, but the real extremism is on the left. Strategically, the GOP should highlight both protection of life and compassion for women.

Kristen Day:
Both parties are alienating key groups. Democrats ignore pro-life voices in their own coalition—especially religious and working-class voters. Republicans, meanwhile, sometimes alienate women who feel unheard. A strategy that acknowledges complexity—reducing abortions through support as well as limits—could broaden appeal for either party.

Ron DeSantis:
Charlie and Kristen are right. Republicans win when we frame the debate around protecting life and supporting families. Extremism is a trap for Democrats. But Republicans must also avoid purity tests that ignore political reality. Strategy requires firmness in principle but wisdom in messaging.

John Roberts:
From an institutional perspective, extremity erodes trust. Courts become politicized, legislatures become paralyzed. Strategy that seeks incremental progress, compromise, or consensus-building is more sustainable than all-or-nothing positions. The law evolves best when politics respects limits.

Moderator (Judge Brown):
For our final round, I want each of you to answer this: What path forward—federal legislation, state-by-state laws, or a constitutional amendment—offers the most stable and just resolution for America?

Charlie Kirk:
The endgame must be a constitutional amendment protecting life. State-by-state is unsustainable—it creates moral chaos where one state protects children and another discards them. America can’t endure half-pro-life and half-pro-choice forever. Justice demands national coherence.

Kristen Day:
I’m not convinced a sweeping amendment will bring stability. A more practical path is bipartisan legislation that reduces abortions without demonizing women—like expanding maternity care and prohibiting late-term abortion. Stability comes from trust, not maximalism.

Ron DeSantis:
I lean toward state-by-state governance. It reflects federalism and allows debate to unfold democratically. A constitutional amendment may be ideal someday, but for now, preserving the states’ role will reduce national conflict. Stability comes from respecting the system.

Gavin Newsom:
I reject that entirely. State-by-state means unequal rights, plain and simple. The stable resolution is federal protection of reproductive freedom, codified in law. Otherwise, we will see endless patchworks and legal chaos. America needs clarity—and clarity means a national guarantee of choice.

John Roberts:
The Constitution leaves this to the people, through their representatives. A constitutional amendment would bring finality but is politically improbable today. More likely, stability will come through political compromise—some federal baseline, layered with state discretion. Justice often advances incrementally, not by sweeping declarations.

Moderator (Judge Brown):
This discussion shows how abortion is not just about morality but governance—whether America trusts states to decide, demands federal uniformity, or seeks constitutional finality. The path forward may not please all, but it must preserve both justice and stability if the nation is to endure.

Topic 5: Moral Identity and the Future — Generational Values

Moderator: Judge Janice Rogers Brown

Speakers: Charlie Kirk, Ben Shapiro, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), Abby Johnson, Caitlin Flanagan

Moderator (Judge Janice Rogers Brown):
Young generations will inherit the decisions made on abortion today. My first question: How do you think Gen Z and younger Americans view abortion differently from past generations, and what does that mean for the future of this debate?

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez:
Gen Z sees abortion through the lens of autonomy and justice. They’ve grown up in a world of expanding rights—marriage equality, gender identity recognition—and they expect reproductive freedom to be part of that same arc. For them, restricting abortion feels like a rollback of progress.

Ben Shapiro:
I think AOC overstates it. Gen Z is also the most pro-life generation since Roe v. Wade. They’ve grown up seeing ultrasound images, knowing science affirms life at conception, and understanding that “clump of cells” rhetoric is outdated. The divide is sharper, yes, but many young people are instinctively pro-life.

Caitlin Flanagan:
I’d say Gen Z is conflicted. On one hand, they embrace personal freedom; on the other, they’re haunted by loneliness, despair, and a yearning for meaning. Abortion fits into that conflict. Some see it as liberation, others as evidence of a society unwilling to embrace responsibility. Their uncertainty shapes the debate.

Abby Johnson:
I talk to young people every day. Many who once saw abortion as normal are now unsettled after hearing real stories of abortion’s impact on women. Gen Z is not hardened yet. They are open to compassion and truth, and that makes the future hopeful for the pro-life movement.

Charlie Kirk:
Exactly. Gen Z isn’t buying the same old pro-choice slogans. They want authenticity. And when they see that abortion ends a heartbeat, they know something’s wrong. This generation could turn the tide—if we speak boldly and back it with action.

Moderator (Judge Brown):
Thank you. Now let’s dig deeper. Abortion debates often center on law and policy, but they also shape moral identity. How do you think abortion defines America’s moral self-image for the next generation?

Caitlin Flanagan:
America is always in tension between ideals and realities. Abortion exposes that tension brutally: a country that celebrates life, yet allows ending it. For the next generation, our stance will signal whether we prioritize autonomy above all or whether we can reconcile liberty with responsibility. It will shape how they see justice itself.

Charlie Kirk:
Abortion defines whether America is a culture of life or a culture of death. If we embrace abortion, we normalize nihilism: that convenience outweighs life. If we reject it, we reclaim moral seriousness. The next generation will see clearly which path we choose.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez:
But Charlie, America’s moral self-image is also about respecting people as full citizens. To deny women the right to control their bodies is to mark them as second-class. Our moral identity must be one of equality, even when choices are difficult. That is the justice young people want to see.

Abby Johnson:
AOC, I respect your passion, but I’ve lived the other side. Abortion doesn’t empower women; it wounds them. America’s moral identity must be to protect—not betray—the vulnerable, both unborn children and mothers pressured into abortion. That’s the legacy worth passing on.

Ben Shapiro:
I’ll be blunt: abortion defines whether we believe human life has inherent value or not. Everything else flows from that. If we cheapen life at its beginning, why be shocked when our culture cheapens it elsewhere? Gen Z will inherit the moral consequences of this choice.

Moderator (Judge Brown):
For our last question: Looking fifty years ahead, what legacy on abortion do you believe America should leave for future generations, and how should Gen Z lead us there?

Abby Johnson:
Fifty years from now, I hope abortion is unthinkable—not just illegal. I hope Gen Z leads by creating a culture where women know they will be supported, children will be cherished, and families will be strengthened. Compassion must be the driver.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez:
My hope is the opposite: that abortion is safe, legal, and rare—not because it’s banned, but because society supports women so thoroughly that difficult choices are less frequent. The legacy should be one of trust: trust women to decide, trust society to empower them.

Charlie Kirk:
In fifty years, I want textbooks to look back on abortion the way we now look back on slavery or segregation—with shame. I want Gen Z to say, “We ended it.” That will be the legacy of courage, of choosing life when it was hardest.

Ben Shapiro:
I agree with Charlie. The legacy must be a reaffirmation of the sanctity of life. Gen Z should lead by rejecting relativism and embracing truth—that every life, no matter how small or dependent, has infinite worth. That’s the only stable foundation for America’s future.

Caitlin Flanagan:
I’d offer a more nuanced vision. The legacy should be honesty—that we faced abortion’s complexity without slogans. If Gen Z can lead us to compassion that acknowledges both women’s struggles and children’s rights, they may heal what past generations could not. That healing could be the greatest legacy of all.

Moderator (Judge Brown):
We end where we began: with a generation standing at a crossroads. Abortion is not merely a policy—it is a mirror of America’s soul. Whether Gen Z leads us toward autonomy, protection, or reconciliation, the legacy will define not just their future, but the very meaning of justice in this nation.

Final Thoughts by Robert P. George

We have journeyed through law, science, poverty, politics, and morality. We have heard appeals to liberty, and appeals to life. We have been reminded of the dignity of women, and of the humanity of the unborn.

What unites these themes is not a single conclusion but a single question: What does justice require of us? Justice is not merely a compromise between competing interests; it is the recognition of what is owed to every human being by virtue of their humanity.

If life begins at conception, as science strongly suggests, then justice compels us to protect it. If liberty demands respect for the choices of women, then justice compels us to support them with compassion and solidarity. The path forward, then, is not to pit liberty against life, but to seek a society where both are honored—where no woman feels abandoned, and no child is denied recognition.

Fifty years from now, future generations will look back on us. They will ask whether we chose convenience or conscience, despair or hope, division or unity. My prayer is that they will say: We chose life, and we chose love. We did not abandon the vulnerable. We upheld justice for all.

That is the task before us. And it is the measure by which history—and eternity—will judge.

Short Bios:

Robert P. George is a professor of jurisprudence at Princeton University and one of America’s leading conservative intellectuals, widely respected for his scholarship on natural law, constitutional interpretation, and human rights.

Charlie Kirk is the founder of Turning Point USA and a prominent conservative activist and commentator, known for engaging young audiences on issues of politics, culture, and faith.

Laurence Tribe is a constitutional law scholar at Harvard Law School, recognized as one of the nation’s foremost liberal legal thinkers and an influential voice in Supreme Court debates.

Ruth Marcus is a columnist and deputy editorial page editor at The Washington Post, offering commentary on law, politics, and social issues from a progressive perspective.

Helen Alvaré is a law professor at George Mason University and a pro-life feminist legal scholar, focusing on family law, religion, and bioethics.

Dr. Maureen Condic is an associate professor of neurobiology and anatomy, known for her research in embryology and her work on when human life begins from a scientific perspective.

Dr. Willie Parker is an obstetrician-gynecologist and reproductive rights advocate, known for his pro-choice activism and writings on the moral and medical dimensions of abortion.

Francis Collins is a physician-geneticist and former director of the National Institutes of Health, respected for leading the Human Genome Project and for integrating science and faith in public life.

Judith Jarvis Thomson was a moral philosopher best known for her thought experiments on abortion, particularly the “violinist” analogy, which shaped modern philosophical debates on personhood and autonomy.

Kristan Hawkins is the president of Students for Life of America, a leading pro-life activist group focused on mobilizing young people and expanding resources for pregnant students.

Gloria Steinem is a writer, lecturer, and activist widely recognized as a leading figure in the feminist movement and an advocate for reproductive rights.

Dr. Kathryn Edin is a sociologist and poverty researcher, known for her fieldwork on low-income families and her contributions to public policy on housing, welfare, and inequality.

Tim Keller was a pastor, theologian, and author, co-founder of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City, respected for his Christian teaching on justice, compassion, and cultural engagement.

Ron DeSantis is the governor of Florida and a Republican political leader, noted for his conservative policies and national influence within the GOP.

Gavin Newsom is the governor of California and a Democratic political leader, known for progressive positions on healthcare, immigration, and social issues.

John Roberts is the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, regarded as a conservative-leaning jurist who often seeks institutional balance and incremental decisions.

Kristen Day is the executive director of Democrats for Life of America, advocating for pro-life policies within the Democratic Party and bridging divides across political lines.

Ben Shapiro is a conservative commentator, author, and founder of The Daily Wire, known for his sharp debates and strong pro-life positions.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a U.S. Representative from New York, part of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, advocating for reproductive rights and social justice issues.

Abby Johnson is a former Planned Parenthood clinic director turned pro-life advocate, whose personal story has made her a prominent voice in the movement.

Caitlin Flanagan is a writer and cultural critic for The Atlantic, offering nuanced commentary on feminism, family, and social issues with a focus on moral complexity.