Charlie Kirk Confronts UC Riverside Biology Student Who Defends Infanticide at Campus Event
Enjoying this? Share it with someone who needs to see it.
Up Next
Charlie Kirk Debates Atheist Student on Abortion, Consciousness, and the Soul at Campus Event
11:06
Campus Debate on Objective Truth, Abortion, Race, and the Legacy of Malcolm X
10:40
Charlie Kirk Debates When Human Life Begins and Abortion Rights With College Students
4:25
Charlie Kirk Confronts UC Riverside Biology Student Who Defends Infanticide at Campus Event
Charlie Kirk faced off against a UC Riverside biology student who claimed human life only becomes worthy of protection when a child can speak. The heated exchange covered everything from accusations of busing in supporters to fundamental questions about when human life begins. What started as criticism about crowd demographics quickly turned into a shocking defense of post-birth termination, with the student openly stating he would be fine with killing a six-month-old infant. Kirk used the moment to highlight what he calls the moral decay in higher education, pressing the student on basic ethical questions that exposed disturbing answers about the value of human life versus animal life.
The confrontation began with a UC Riverside student rolling his eyes during chants of "USA" at a campus event. When Charlie Kirk called out this gesture, the student launched into accusations, claiming Kirk was "destroying America" and "actively contributing more to the binary American empire than every communist in history." The student went on to compare Kirk to "every leftwing anti-war anti-American activist," setting an aggressive tone from the start.
Kirk attempted to give the student space to speak, even correcting himself when he initially used the wrong pronoun, saying "Allow him or her, I'm sorry, I don't mean to misgender you to talk."
Accusations of Busing in Supporters
The student's first substantive claim was that Kirk's event only drew a crowd because supporters were bused in from retirement homes. "You would not get like a tenth of this crowd if you actually just talked to students. So, you had to bust in people from the retirement homes," the student alleged, claiming this showed "great intelligence" as a strategic move.
Kirk flatly denied the accusation, stating "No one was bust in, my friend." When the student pointed to "people with silver hair and like wrinkled skin," Kirk explained they simply drove themselves to the event. He challenged the student to find older people in the crowd, noting the difficulty in doing so, while pointing out that an entire section was filled with young attendees.
Kirk turned the criticism around, asking "What is the criticism? We represent Americans of all ages from young to old. Why is that a bad thing?" He characterized the student's disbelief as "the left refusing to believe we're very popular on a liberal college campus in California," adding that they are "very, very popular."
Policy Disagreements and Debate Tactics
The student claimed that nothing Kirk had said was "even remotely accurate," citing environmental policy as an example. He mocked the idea of building more homes in Joshua Tree, sarcastically suggesting Kirk wanted to "bulldoze like endangered Joshua trees and like get rid of wildlife reservations" to build "single family suburban homes" to solve the housing crisis.
When Kirk asked the student to show more respect, the challenger shot back: "I don't know. Maybe I could have a bit more respect if you actually debated instead of just bringing on people who come here to you off." Kirk responded by asking if the student actually wanted to debate or just wanted to swear every other word.
The student continued his critique of the event format, suggesting Kirk preferred to "get college students who agree with you in front of you" rather than engage in genuine debate.
The Abortion Debate Turns Dark
The conversation shifted to abortion when the student challenged Kirk's position that life begins at conception. "You mentioned you think abortion is a scientific thing like what like life starts at conception that's scientifically proven. How?" the student asked.
Kirk responded by asking when DNA forms and when human development begins. The student, identifying himself as a biology student, acknowledged understanding "the process of gamete fusion" and what a zygote is, but insisted "that's not a moral qualifier."
Kirk pressed the point: "So, it's a human and human development begins at conception. Therefore, human life begins at conception." When asked about the moral significance of humans compared to animals, Kirk offered a clear distinction: "We are the only beings that can blush, can show love, show empathy, compassion, and have a soul. A dog can feel pleasure and pain. We can do good from evil and right from wrong, and just from unjust. Human beings are above the animals and below the angels made in the image of our creator God Almighty."
A Shocking Admission
The student dismissed Kirk's answer as "founded in nothing," declaring "There is no soul," and arguing that zygotes are "not capable of any of that." Kirk acknowledged that winning the student over on the concept of a soul might be difficult but maintained that human development is still a process that deserves protection from its earliest moment.
Kirk then asked the crucial question: "When does human life begin?" or more specifically, "When did your life become worthy of protection?"
The student's answer stunned the audience: "When I became actually conscious and able to speak."
Kirk clarified: "So like able to speak. So like 2 years old." The student confirmed, "I think I was a bit earlier than that," to which Kirk noted that babies usually don't speak until about a year and a half. Then came the direct question: "So if I murdered you at 6 months, that's okay."
The student answered simply: "Yes."
The crowd reacted audibly as Kirk emphasized the implications: "And you're a bio student at UC Riverside?" The student confirmed this was true.
Pressing the Logical Conclusions
Kirk didn't let the matter rest there, asking about babies who never develop speech abilities: "What about babies that never speak? Can I murder them?"
The student attempted to refine his position, clarifying he wasn't necessarily saying "physical speech is a qualifier" for moral significance, but rather "some actual nervous activity." He compared fetal development to pigs, noting that pigs are "capable of that much," and challenged Kirk on whether he was vegetarian or ate meat.
Kirk maintained his position: "Animals will never reach the level of human reason or consciousness. A human is valued because it is a human being." When asked about disabled persons, Kirk was clear: "They're still valuable because they're a person. They're a human being. They're not a snake. They're not a lizard. They're not a toad. They're not a leopard. They're a human being. Therefore, worthy of protection."
The Final Test
Kirk posed a hypothetical to test the student's moral framework: "Would you save a 100 dogs lives or one human life?"
The student answered: "One human life." But when Kirk asked why, the student qualified his answer: "Well, I mean, it depends on the human obviously." Then came a personal attack: "I would save one dog over your life."
Kirk pressed for an explanation of why a human life should be valued, but the exchange was cut short. Kirk used his closing remarks to make a broader point about the state of higher education: "The fact that he's a bio student at this university shows the horrifying moral rot happening in higher education."
As Kirk moved to end the exchange and proceed to other questioners in line, he summarized the disturbing nature of what had just transpired: "I've heard a lot of things, but terminating a 9-month-old baby, that's something else."
