Charlie Kirk Debates Pro-Choice Student Dean Withers on Abortion, Murder Definitions, and IUD Ethics at Campus Event

Defining Murder and Self-Defense

The debate begins with a disagreement over the definition of murder. The pro-choice student Dean Withers challenges the initial definition, arguing that intentionally killing a human being is too broad a definition for murder. He provides an example: if someone breaks into his home and threatens his family at gunpoint, killing that intruder to protect his loved ones would not constitute murder despite being an intentional killing.

Charlie Kirk acknowledges this point, clarifying that self-defense is warranted and represents a legitimate exception to the general prohibition against killing. Withers then refines the definition, proposing that murder should be understood as "the unjustified termination of a human life" rather than simply any intentional killing. Kirk accepts this refinement while noting that he anticipates where Withers plans to take this argument regarding abortion.

The IUD Challenge

Withers presents what he considers a challenge to Kirk's pro-life position by raising the issue of intrauterine devices (IUDs). He characterizes Kirk's position as holding that it is murder to kill a human being at any point in development, especially when in the mother's womb. Withers then asks whether this logic would make women with IUDs murderers.

His reasoning centers on how IUDs function in certain scenarios. According to Withers, an IUD can sometimes allow conception to occur, meaning a unique human life exists, but then prevents implantation of that conceived embryo into the uterine wall, intentionally killing it.

Kirk's Response on IUDs and Fertilization

Kirk pushes back on this characterization, drawing a distinction between preventing implantation and terminating a fertilized egg. He argues that preventing implantation is not necessarily the same thing as terminating a fertilized egg. Kirk uses Plan B as an example, explaining that preventing the production of progesterone is different from terminating a being that has already been fertilized.

Kirk emphasizes a key point: with an IUD, you do not know for a fact that the egg has been fertilized. This uncertainty, in his view, creates a meaningful distinction between using an IUD and deliberately aborting a known pregnancy.

Knowledge and Moral Culpability

Withers clarifies the mechanism, explaining that preventing fertilization or implantation to the uterine lining can result in killing a conceived zygote. He describes the process: a sperm enters the egg, the egg becomes fertilized creating a conceived zygote, and in some cases the IUD prevents implantation of this conceived zygote, thereby killing it.

Kirk acknowledges that this happens "in some cases," which prompts Withers to ask whether Kirk believes that in some cases women are therefore murderers. Kirk firmly rejects this conclusion, stating "Of course not. They're not murderers." His reasoning centers on the lack of certainty about whether fertilization has occurred.

Withers presses the issue, asking what difference exists between an IUD killing a conceived zygote and a mother going to Planned Parenthood to terminate a fetus in her womb. Kirk responds by pointing out that Withers is asking two separate questions.

Intentional Killing Versus Uncertainty

Kirk draws a critical distinction based on knowledge and intent. If a woman knew for certain that she had a fertilized egg and deliberately took a drug to prevent that fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall, then yes, Kirk argues, that would constitute an act of killing or murder.

Withers then asks whether Kirk believes all murderers should go to jail, setting up what appears to be a logical trap regarding the legal consequences of abortion.

Legal Accountability and Cultural Deception

Kirk provides a nuanced answer regarding legal accountability. When asked if all murderers should go to jail, he clarifies his position on different degrees of murder and specifically addresses abortion. He states that he does not think women who had abortions or used IUDs should go to jail.

His reasoning centers on cultural deception. Kirk argues that these women have been "deceived by mass culture and mass propaganda." In his view, the primary moral and legal culpability lies elsewhere.

Who Should Be Held Accountable

Kirk is emphatic about where he believes legal consequences should fall. He argues that the people who should go to jail are the abortionists themselves—those who provide abortion pills, perform abortion procedures, and conduct late-term abortions.

He provides graphic descriptions of late-term abortion procedures, describing abortionists "going into the third trimester and breaking babies backs and inserting them with syringes while the babies are crying and suffocating, being born alive, and then being dead on the operating table." These abortion providers, Kirk insists, are the ones who should face legal consequences, not the women they have deceived.