argument

National Catholic Register, Sep 19, 2025 / 10:40 am (CNA).

The news that pro-life activist Lila Rose was declared the winner by students attending a debate earlier this week with an abortion activist at Yale University — a campus not particularly known for its pro-life sentiment — lit up the pro-life corners of the internet.

Rose, the founder and president of Live Action, posted on X following Tuesday night’s debate, which was hosted by the Yale Political Union. She said the event’s organizer was “shocked” after those in attendance voted in favor of the pro-life argument by a margin of 60-31.

For defenders of the lives of unborn babies, it was heartening to see apparent evidence that arguments against abortion are making headway, even at one of the country’s most elite educational institutions. 

Rose’s opponent, Frances Kissling, the former head of Catholics for Choice and founding president of the National Abortion Federation, laid bare the diabolical essence of the “pro-choice” argument. An unborn baby may be human, according to Kissling, but a woman should be able to decide whether the child lives or dies.

“We need to begin to think about abortion as a conflict of values. I tend to favor more or think more about the value of women’s lives,” Kissling said.

“I’m not talking about whether they’re going to die or not,” she said. “I’m talking about the fact that they have decisions to make about how they are going to live that life,” Kissling clarified.

Kissling, who is Catholic and had spent two years as a religious sister in a convent, went on to say that abortion should be condoned by what she said is an ever-evolving Catholic Church.

“The idea that Catholicism never changes is not true, even in very serious decisions,” she said. “I was thinking about this. Whatever happened to limbo?”

“I’m in the group of Catholics who look at the idea that even the Catholic Church can change. We learn new things,” she said. 

Rose countered by describing what allowing “choice” to trump life really looks like, citing the recent case of a 21-year-old college student whose newborn baby was found dead, wrapped in a towel and stuffed in a closet.

“A child hidden in a closet, his humanity denied. If this does not grieve us, then what will? This is what choice over life looks like when the choice of adults is made supreme,” Rose said.

“What about the child’s choice? That has not been represented here yet tonight. And so let me ask the question here plainly: Should murder be legal? Of course not. Then why do we excuse abortion? Abortion is the direct and intentional killing of an innocent human being,” she said.

Rose called for more federal funding for pregnancy-resource centers, for government-funded cash credits for parents, and for making childbirth free.

“Instead of turning to violence against the most vulnerable as a solution to problems that we face, instead, we should be a society that uplifts, that makes life better for the vulnerable, that focuses our energy and our efforts and our organizations and our resources on supporting women and young families and children,” Rose said.

At the conclusion of the debate, Kissling revealed that at the heart of her position is a concession that an unborn child is, in fact, a human being. 

Kissling then presented the argument put forward by adherents of utilitarian moral theory that an action can be justified if it leads to the “happiness” of the greatest number of people.

The abortion activist suggested considering a “thought experiment” involving a situation in which there is a fire in a building, and one is faced with deciding whether to rescue a poor family of six or a doctor who was about to come up with a cure for cancer. 

“I’m asking you to think for yourself about how much you really believe and how much you act and how all our governments act within the principle of ‘every single life [has equal value],’” she said.

“The greatest good for the greatest number of people. Good principle. Do you save the family of six or do you save the doctor? That’s it,” she said.

Following the debate, Sabrina Soriano, a junior and art history major at Yale, said she thought Rose was the clear winner.

“I think Lila definitely just swept the floor and took the trophy prize because she came in with a sense of humility, and also with a deep sense of wanting to do justice to the Church in general, and also to the unborn.”

“I think regardless of if you were pro-choice, you understood that the argument [Kissling made] was weak, and it was based on more of a crowd-surfing or sentimentality rather than the facts,” said Soriano, who is Catholic and a member of the campus pro-life group, as were many students in attendance.

Kylyn Smith, a 19-year-old senior and double major in physics and economics, told the National Catholic Register, CNA’s sister news partner, that while there was a strong contingent of pro-life advocates in the audience, Rose bested Kissling in the debate fair and square. 

“Lila Rose valiantly defended the pro-life position with a secular, logical argument centered on the humanity of the unborn child. It was incredible watching her speak just as incisively and coherently live and in person as on her videos,” Smith said. 

“Passion from attendees of all opinions quite literally rang throughout the auditorium, from hissing in disagreement to stomping in support. Ms. Rose’s cogent reasoning stood in stark contrast to the often-contradictory statements of the other guest, solidifying Lila’s win.”

This story was first published by the National Catholic Register, CNA’s sister news partner, and has been adapted by CNA.

Read More