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 Dismantles The Violinist Thought Experiment and Abortion Logic at College Campus Event
Charlie Kirk faces the famous violinist thought experiment during a campus Q&A on abortion. A student presents the philosophical case designed to justify abortion, but Kirk methodically dismantles it by pointing out it only applies to less than 1% of abortion cases involving rape. He then turns the tables, walking through moral questions about sacrifice, suffering, and the humanity of the unborn. What starts as an abstract philosophical debate becomes a powerful examination of why society uses clinical language like "fetus" to distance itself from the moral reality of abortion.
A student approached Charlie Kirk with a question about abortion, specifically referencing the famous Thompson violinist case—a philosophical thought experiment often used to justify abortion rights. The scenario goes like this: you wake up in a hotel room connected to another person (in this case, Kirk himself in the hypothetical). Your blood is flowing through their kidneys and back into your body, keeping them alive. If you unplug yourself, they die. This connection must last for nine months.
The student presented this as analogous to pregnancy, arguing that just as you shouldn't be forced to remain connected to the violinist, a woman shouldn't be forced to remain pregnant. Kirk immediately identified a critical flaw in the analogy.
The Fatal Flaw in the Analogy
Kirk's first question cut to the heart of the matter: how did this situation happen? When the student clarified it happened against the person's will—equivalent to rape—Kirk pointed out that such cases represent less than 1% of all abortions. The thought experiment, therefore, doesn't apply to the other 99% of abortions that result from consensual sex.
Despite this limitation, Kirk engaged with the hypothetical on its own terms. He stated that to be consistent and to save a life, he personally would give part of his kidney to save somebody's life for nine months. When the student suggested the person couldn't leave the bed for nine months, Kirk challenged this, noting that pregnant women are not typically bedridden. He pointed out that only in rare cases—such as pre-term labor around 25 or 26 weeks requiring magnesium treatment—might someone need bed rest for 3 to 4 weeks.
When Does Life Begin?
Kirk then turned the conversation to a fundamental question: when does life begin? The student responded that it's impossible to define, claiming life is very abstract. Kirk found this remarkable—the student acknowledged being alive, acknowledged others around them were alive, but claimed life itself was impossible to define.
When asked what gave them the belief that people around them were alive, the student answered "intuition." Kirk pressed further, pointing out the objective criteria we use: breathing, pulse rate, heartbeat, brain waves, consciousness. The student retreated into philosophical skepticism, suggesting "you can't know anything for sure."
The Morality of Sacrifice
Kirk then explored the moral dimensions of sacrifice through another hypothetical. If someone voluntarily hooked themselves up to another person in bed and committed to nine months, should they have the ability to disconnect? Kirk noted that people make such commitments all the time as kidney donors—millions give away kidneys and livers to strangers who need them.
When asked if people are morally obligated to do so, Kirk presented another scenario: two people stranded on an island, one needing an organ the other doesn't personally need to survive. Are you morally obligated to give that organ? The student hesitated but ultimately said yes, though later walked it back to a difference of opinion.
Kirk then established an important principle: they agreed there's morality and goodness in sacrificing something you might not need but that inconveniences you to help somebody else. He then asked the inverse question: if it's good to sacrifice part of what you don't need to help somebody else, is it therefore bad not to do that thing?
The student retreated to individual rights, arguing that while giving would make you a nice person, you're not morally obligated. Kirk noted they had switched from calling it "good" to calling it "nice"—two different moral categories.
The Starving Stranger Test
Kirk then posed another hypothetical: you're in a deserted town, someone is starving to death after 30 days without food, you have two Big Macs, you really want them both, but one would save their life. If you don't give it and they starve to death, what kind of person are you? The student admitted: "kind of a shitty person."
Kirk then drew the parallel: how is that different from a woman saying she's pregnant, it's not what she wanted, she might have to go through nine months that might not be the easiest, but another human being gets to enjoy the beauty of life? The student distinguished between being a jerk and being morally wrong, claiming you can be the former without being the latter.
Kirk agreed that being a jerk and being evil are different things, but argued that terminating a baby is not merely being a jerk—it crosses into a different moral category entirely.
The Language of Abortion
The conversation then turned to the language used in abortion debates. Kirk asked what "fetus" means in Latin. When the student said they didn't speak Latin, Kirk revealed it means "little human." He explained that people use the clinical term "fetus" because it makes them feel better—they don't want to use the word "baby" because they want to cloak the horror of abortion in sanitized medical terminology.
As Kirk put it, people say "it's a fetus" as if it's a different species like a rhinoceros or giraffe, when in reality it's the same species as a human, just not as big or as advanced. The clinical language allows people to feel better about terminating that being.
The Question of Suffering
Kirk then asked whether we should try to limit suffering on Earth. The student obviously agreed. Kirk then posed a pointed question: if the majority of abortions that occur cause the baby to feel pain, should we probably stop doing that?
The student objected that it's not that simple, pointing out that giving birth also causes pain. Kirk acknowledged this but noted that modern medicine has significantly reduced that pain—epidurals are available, and one out of three births in the United States are done by cesarean section.
Making the Complex Simple
Kirk concluded with a broader observation about how academia approaches moral questions. He argued that college makes very simple moral questions so complex that students have to keep borrowing money they don't have to get degrees that teach them to overthink good and evil—moral truths that somebody on the side of the street can easily understand. As Kirk put it, murder is wrong doesn't take deep and profound thinking.
The student objected that they weren't overcomplicating things but bringing up the reality of pain in childbirth. Kirk responded that this was a tangential point that had nothing to do with the fundamental moral question at hand.
The exchange demonstrated how philosophical thought experiments, while intellectually interesting, often obscure rather than illuminate the moral realities of abortion. By systematically addressing each point—the limited applicability of the violinist case, the objective reality of human life, the moral weight of sacrifice, and the sanitized language used to distance people from what abortion actually is—Kirk showed how straightforward moral reasoning can cut through layers of abstraction.
