2,387 videos 1,376,944,188 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 Defends Pro-Life Stance in Passionate Exchange with Split-Ticket Voter on Abortion Morality
Charlie Kirk engages in an intense dialogue with a self-described split-ticket voter who questions whether Republicans should prioritize the pro-life position. The conversation moves from the founding of Planned Parenthood through fundamental questions about when life begins, universal human rights, and whether moral standards should differ based on a child's location or method of conception. Kirk challenges the voter to consider whether size, development, environment, or dependency should determine human value, ultimately arguing that human life deserves protection at every stage.
A voter who splits their ticket between Democrats and Republicans approached Charlie Kirk with a challenging question about the Republican Party's commitment to the pro-life position. The voter expressed difficulty supporting Republicans when being pro-life appears to be a non-negotiable stance, questioning whether this single issue is worth potentially damaging the entire party.
Kirk immediately directed the conversation toward the historical foundations of the abortion debate in America, urging the voter to research Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, and Project 1916. He framed the pro-life position as a matter of fundamental principles, asking what could be more important than protecting human life if a movement doesn't stand for that basic principle.
When Does Human Life Begin?
Kirk asked the voter a foundational question: when does human life begin? The voter answered that life begins at conception. Kirk then pressed the logical follow-up: if life begins at conception, shouldn't it be illegal to kill that human life? This led to a discussion about circumstances of conception, with the voter raising concerns about pregnancies resulting from rape.
Kirk acknowledged that rape, incest, and life-of-the-mother situations represent less than 1% of all abortions, though he agreed these cases are important to discuss. He asked whether the voter would support making abortion illegal in the 99.4% of cases where conception resulted from consensual sex, setting aside the exceptional circumstances for the moment.
The Social Safety Net Argument
When pressed on the non-exceptional cases, the voter shifted to arguing that there isn't an adequate social safety net for women facing unplanned pregnancies. Kirk redirected this argument, asking whether the absence of a social safety net justifies taking a human life. The voter had previously stated that life begins at conception but resisted calling abortion murder.
Kirk challenged this inconsistency, asking what else you would call the intentional ending of a human life if not murder. The conversation revealed the tension between accepting that life begins at conception while simultaneously arguing for the right to end that life under certain circumstances.
The Method of Conception Argument
Returning to the rape exception, Kirk presented a thought experiment involving two ultrasounds—one of a baby conceived through rape and another conceived in a loving relationship. He asked whether anyone could tell which was which, making the point that human rights don't change based on the method of conception.
Kirk argued that someone in the audience was likely conceived through rape, but no one could identify who because human rights are universal. He explained that the pro-life position holds that all humans are made in the image of God and therefore deserve protection regardless of how they came into the world.
Bodily Autonomy vs. Human Rights
The voter argued that the decision should belong to the woman because the baby is in her body. Kirk challenged this by comparing it to his six-month-old son, asking whether he should be allowed to harm his child simply because he's caring for the child. When the voter said no, Kirk asked why the standard would be different for a six-week-old baby in the womb versus a six-month-old baby outside the womb.
The voter struggled to articulate a consistent principle, repeatedly falling back on the position that it should be the woman's choice without providing a moral framework for why location or dependency should determine whether a life can be legally ended.
The Nazi Analogy and Self-Defense
When Kirk asked whether murder is black and white, the voter brought up their grandparents shooting a Nazi in Nazi Germany, suggesting that not all killing is morally equivalent. Kirk clarified that self-defense against someone threatening your life is different from ending an innocent life. He asked whether an unborn baby is equivalent to a Nazi, and the voter acknowledged they are not.
This exchange highlighted the distinction between justifiable homicide in self-defense and the intentional ending of innocent human life. Kirk maintained that abortion belongs in the latter category and should be illegal for the same reason that killing an innocent person outside the womb is illegal.
The Reality of Abortion Procedures
Kirk described what actually happens during an abortion, explaining that surgical abortions involve breaking the baby's back and dismembering the child. When asked about abortion pills, he explained that chemical abortions involve starving the baby of nutrients through progesterone deprivation, causing the baby to die over several days before being discharged.
The voter asked about the gestational age, and Kirk clarified that chemical abortions are legal in all 50 states between 3 to 10 weeks. He also noted that chemical abortions are actually more dangerous for women than surgical abortions, with emergency room visits up nearly 2,000% for women using the abortion pill.
The Legality and Safety Arguments
The voter suggested that abortions will happen regardless of legality, so why not provide a safe environment for them to occur. Kirk countered with the example of rape: rape is illegal and still occurs, but that doesn't mean rape should be legalized. The fact that people will break a law doesn't mean the law shouldn't exist.
Kirk also challenged the premise that abortion is safe for women, pointing out the physical trauma and increasing rates of complications. He argued there is no such thing as a safe abortion because it always ends in death for the unborn child and often causes lasting physical and emotional harm to the mother.
Subjective vs. Objective Morality
Kirk asked why society accepts that one woman can say she's having a baby while another woman in the same situation can say she has a clump of cells she can terminate. He questioned why morality should be subjective—why one person's choice should determine what something is and whether it has value.
The voter said they didn't think deeply about the terminology being used. Kirk insisted this wasn't about terminology but about fundamental human morality. He compared it to a mother deciding to kill her toddler simply because the child is dependent on her and she's larger and more powerful.
Down Syndrome and Sex Selection
Kirk asked whether it should be legal to abort a baby after discovering it has Down syndrome. The voter answered that it should be illegal to abort based on that information. When Kirk then asked about aborting a baby based on sex selection—wanting a girl but finding out it's a boy—the voter dismissed these as hypothetical questions.
Kirk clarified that these are not hypothetical scenarios. In Iceland, it is the law to abort babies diagnosed with Down syndrome. In some Eastern European countries, children with disabilities are sent to insane asylums and parents never see them again. These real-world examples illustrate how accepting abortion leads to selective elimination of humans deemed less valuable.
The Core Principle of Human Equality
Kirk summarized the pro-life position: human life is human life regardless of size, level of development, environment, or degree of dependency. The pro-life movement maintains that universal human equality means a person has the same value at five weeks in the womb as they do at fifty years old walking down the street.
He stated that America currently has over a million and a half murders per year that society calls healthcare. Kirk asked the voter if they could understand where the pro-life movement is coming from. The voter acknowledged understanding the position, though they hadn't changed their own view during the conversation.
The Faith Component
At the end of the exchange, Kirk asked if the voter was a Christian. When they said no, Kirk remarked that he could tell. This highlighted an underlying element of the abortion debate—that for many in the pro-life movement, the position is grounded in a belief that humans are made in the image of God and that human rights flow from that divine creation rather than from subjective human preferences or utilitarian calculations.
