2,422 videos 1,389,747,653 views US Joined Aug 30, 2018
Charlie Kirk is the Founder and President of Turning Point USA, the largest and fastest growing conservative youth activist organization in the country with over 250,000 student members, over 150 full-time staff, and a presence on over 2,000 high school and college campuses nationwide. Charlie is also the Chairman of Students for Trump, which aims to activate one million new college voters on campuses in battleground states in the lead up to the 2020 presidential election. His social media reaches over 100 million people per month and according to Axios, he is one of the "top 10 most engaged" Twitter handles in the world. He is also the host of “The Charlie Kirk Show,” which regularly ranks among the top news shows on Apple podcast charts.
Charlie Kirk Debates Student on Holocaust Versus Abortion and the Moral Worth of Human Life
Charlie Kirk engages in a challenging campus debate with a student who questions his comparison between the Holocaust and abortion. The exchange explores profound questions about human value, moral worth, and when life begins. Kirk confronts the student's argument that human worth increases with age and experience, ultimately leading to a discussion about sex-selective abortion and eugenics. The conversation touches on pain receptors, the definition of personhood, and whether feelings should determine the moral status of human beings. What begins as a challenge to Kirk's stance evolves into a deeper examination of Western moral philosophy and the principle of universal human equality.
A student approaches Charlie Kirk to challenge a specific statement he made at a university event. The student recalls Kirk stating that he believes abortion is worse than the Holocaust, and comes prepared with research to contest this claim. The student acknowledges that both are distinct evils but takes issue with Kirk's assessment of magnitude.
Kirk clarifies his position: while the Holocaust was far more evil in certain ways, the abortion issue represents a greater magnitude of loss. He explains that he's willing to elaborate on this nuanced distinction, setting the stage for a deeper philosophical debate.
The Numbers Argument
The student presents research showing that Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973 and argues that abortion numbers are simply larger because the practice has continued for a longer period. The student points out that the Holocaust resulted in approximately 6 million deaths per year during its occurrence, and had it continued, would have progressed to 12 million, then 18 million. However, it was stopped because it represented totalitarian mass genocide.
The student then introduces data about abortion timing: 93% of women who obtain abortions do so in the first trimester, totaling 58,590,000 procedures. The student cites research suggesting that at 12 weeks of gestation, pain receptors may not yet be developed. Based on this, the student calculates that outside of first-trimester abortions, approximately 88,200 procedures per year occur after the point where babies might experience pain.
The student argues that every single person in the Holocaust—approximately 2 million per year—could feel pain. Therefore, the student contends that 2 million actual people who were starved and worked to death is more significant than 88,200 life forms, since 58,590,000 of the aborted babies probably didn't feel pain.
Human Worth Beyond Pain
Kirk responds with a fundamental principle: a human life is a human life regardless of how advanced it is or whether it can feel pain. Moral worth, he argues, doesn't depend on developmental stage or capacity to experience suffering.
The student presses on the word "worse," seeking clarification. Kirk explains that abortion is worse in terms of numbers, but acknowledges the Holocaust was worse for two other reasons. First, it eliminated such a large portion of the Jewish population—nearly half of all living Jews were vaporized. Second, there was an intent and evil of trying to eradicate an entire religious people, something that has only happened four or five times in history.
The Question of Moral Difference
Kirk then poses a critical question to the student: What is the moral difference between a four-week-old baby in the uterus and the student? Even accepting the student's argument that the four-week-old baby cannot feel pain, Kirk asks why the student matters more than that baby.
The student responds by arguing that they have past experiences and future experiences, while the baby only has future experiences. The student believes they've probably affected and impacted more people in both positive and negative ways than a four-week-old embryo has.
Kirk immediately identifies the implication of this worldview: that people gain more value based on what they've done, which would mean an 82-year-old has more moral value than an 8-year-old. He points out that Western civilization was actually built on the opposite idea—that we sacrifice the old for the young. During COVID, Kirk notes, society inverted this principle by sacrificing the young for the old.
The Walking Scenario
The student attempts to clarify, presenting a scenario: if someone is walking around with a four-week-old embryo in their stomach versus a four-year-old kid, there are more people who know that four-year-old. That child has the ability to understand fear and recognize that its life is in danger. Therefore, the student argues, there's probably more reason not to terminate the life of the four-year-old rather than the four-week-old.
Kirk identifies multiple problems with this argument. He presents a hypothetical that's actually real: if the government decreed the elimination of children with Down syndrome, would that be acceptable? The student asks if people with Down syndrome can feel pain, recognize fear, and sadness. Kirk acknowledges the capacity is highly diminished but points out this is not hypothetical—in Iceland, abortion is mandatory if a baby has Down syndrome.
The student agrees this is terrible. Kirk presses: but why is it terrible if the abortion doesn't matter that much? If it's just a clump of cells, why not?
Government Mandates and Bodily Autonomy
The student responds that if abortion will directly impact either the mother's life or the baby's life, then it's an important issue. However, the student firmly states the government should never be able to mandate abortion. The whole slogan for the pro-choice movement is "your body, your choice," and the problem in Iceland is that it's entirely left up to the government rather than the individual.
The student clarifies their position: they're arguing for choice in the first trimester, after which different considerations apply.
The Sex-Selective Abortion Question
Kirk introduces another scenario to test the student's moral framework. Should it be legal if a mother finds out she's having a girl but wants a boy—should she be able to abort that three-week-old?
The student answers yes, based on the principle that the child cannot directly survive outside the mother's body at that stage.
Kirk asks the student to think about what was just said. He points out that while the child will eventually be able to survive outside the body, the question is about stages of development. He asks: what is the first step of human development?
The student acknowledges it's when the egg and sperm collaborate at conception. Kirk follows the logic: if human development begins at fertilization or conception, shouldn't the human be protected at conception?
The student argues that even if protected, if the baby is going to be born to a mother who doesn't want a specific gender, they shouldn't be born to that parent in the first place.
The Eugenics Revelation
Kirk makes a stark declaration: what the student is arguing for is eugenics. Sex-selective abortion is not just illegal—it's grotesquely illegal. With DNA testing at three weeks, parents could terminate based on hair color, gender, or any characteristic they don't like. Kirk compares this view of pregnancy to customizing a Ford Explorer—just removing features you don't want from the shopping cart.
The student initially defends the position, acknowledging it's ethically problematic but arguing that if society has advanced to where this can happen, we're already in trouble. Kirk clarifies that this technology already exists—blood tests at three to six weeks can predict almost everything about a baby with high correlation, including sex with 90% accuracy.
Kirk completes the circle back to the Holocaust: sex-selective abortion represents Nazi eugenics philosophy—eliminating those we don't want.
The student pauses, then acknowledges: "You got me on that one." After thinking it through, the student admits that no, you shouldn't be able to kill your baby just because you don't like the gender or other characteristics.
The Pain Argument Revisited
The student returns to the numbers argument, maintaining that when balancing the lives terminated in the Holocaust, they were more significant because every single person had the ability to feel pain, compared to the 58 million abortions where many couldn't feel pain.
Kirk presents his worldview in contrast: whether there's a three-year-old in the audience with few friends living on a homestead, or a 30-year-old who's well-connected and wealthy, there is no moral difference in worth. They are equal.
The student counters that a three-week-old in utero is still leeching off the mother's resources, so it's not entirely its own being.
Kirk points out that children leech for the first three years of life. His 10-month-old doesn't hunt and gather—the baby is directly attached to and dependent on someone for breast milk or formula to survive.
The Cycle of Life
Kirk reframes the language: where the student says "leech," Kirk says the mother "gives life" to the baby. He approaches it from a non-religious, purely moral standpoint. We were all given life by a mother who gave us nutrients through an umbilical cord, and we should give that back. This is the moral cycle of life—that to which much is given, much is expected.
Kirk establishes common ground: human development has a starting point, and even pro-abortion advocates acknowledge this. That starting point is conception. Whether we use the words fetus, embryo, or little one, it's all still a human being. The developing life doesn't transform from one species to another at 10 weeks—it's human development throughout.
Using reason, Kirk argues: if it's human development and it is a human being, then human rights apply. The first of all human rights is the protection of life.
The Foundation of Western Morality
The student brings up medical consent, noting that a 22-year-old can submit to more testing without parental consent than a 10-year-old.
Kirk encourages the student to continue thinking about these issues, acknowledging it's not the student's fault that the reasoning is flawed. He explains that the pro-abortion worldview collapses when you remove feelings and hyper-emotionality. There is no defense using agreed-upon Western reason and Western morality.
Western morality holds that we don't kill people smaller than us. We don't eradicate those with less money or worth. We believe in universal human equality—the overarching Western ideal found in the Declaration of Independence: "All men are created equal."
Kirk's conclusion: if you believe in universal human equality, there is no room for abortion in that society. It cannot exist within that framework.
The Exchange Concludes
The student suggests Kirk also has thinking to do, but Kirk responds that he's thought about this his whole life. The student does as well.
Kirk apologizes for pushing the student on the difficult question about sex-selective abortion, showing grace in the exchange. The student appreciates this and thanks him.
Kirk promises that when the video is edited, both the student's initial answer and the reconsideration will be included, ensuring fairness in how the conversation is presented. The student expresses skepticism with "sure you will," but Kirk insists he will be honest and fair.
The debate demonstrates how challenging questions about the foundations of human worth can lead to genuine reconsideration of positions, even in a public setting.
