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.
Matt Walsh Explains Why Radical Pro-Life Stance Is the Only Morally Coherent Position on Abortion
Matt Walsh articulates his unwavering pro-life position with no exceptions, arguing that it's the only logically and morally coherent stance on abortion. Walsh addresses the fundamental questions: Is it always wrong to kill innocent human beings, and is an unborn child a human? He also critiques Republicans who claim to be pro-life but retreat when victories are achieved, contrasting conservative defensiveness with the left's aggressive celebration of wins. Walsh challenges the GOP's decades-long strategy of moderating on abortion to win elections, questioning why conservatives don't go on offense about the Democrat party's support for late-term abortion instead of constantly debating rare edge cases.
Matt Walsh opens by declaring his position clearly: he is absolutely and radically 100% pro-life with no exceptions. For Walsh, this isn't just a political stance but the only logical and morally coherent position to take on abortion.
Walsh breaks down the abortion debate into two fundamental questions. First, is it always wrong to kill innocent, defenseless human beings? His answer is an unequivocal yes. Second, is an unborn human in the womb actually a human being? Again, his answer is yes.
The logic, as Walsh explains it, is inescapable. If you don't consider the unborn child a human being, you're left with an impossible question: what then is that creature in the womb? Is it some other species? Is there a stage of human development where a human being is somehow not human? Walsh argues this makes no sense, leaving only one logical conclusion: abortion is always wrong because it is always the murder of a human being.
The Political Reality Versus Moral Conviction
While Walsh's moral position is absolute, he acknowledges the political complexities. He recognizes that his stance of total opposition to abortion in all cases is not the majority view of the American people—not even a sizable minority.
Walsh describes this as a major indictment of American culture: most people are okay with at least some amount of baby murder. This represents a significant cultural problem, but it is nonetheless the political reality.
Walsh notes that he has an advantage as a non-politician: he doesn't have to navigate the political realities that elected officials must contend with. This allows him to maintain his principled stance without compromise.
The Revelation of Fake Pro-Life Republicans
When asked about conservative movement members and Republicans who have been exposed as not genuinely pro-life, Walsh expresses little surprise. He points out this has been happening for decades within the Republican party.
The current narrative being pushed is that the way to win elections is to moderate the position on abortion—to be at least a little bit pro-abortion. Walsh notes this isn't a new insight; it's what the Republican party has been saying his entire life. They've consistently insisted that the only way to win elections is to basically forfeit the pro-life position to some extent.
The problem, Walsh observes, is that this strategy doesn't seem to have worked out so far.
The Incoherence of the States' Rights Argument
Walsh addresses the conservative position that abortion should be treated as a states' rights issue. While he personally disagrees—arguing that killing babies is always wrong regardless of location and no state should have the right to kill babies—he points out the logical inconsistency in this approach.
If conservatives take the position that abortion should be a states' rights issue, it makes no sense to then oppose states that actually outlaw it. Yet this is exactly what Walsh sees happening, particularly in Arizona.
After the Supreme Court decision, a law in Arizona was set to go into effect banning most abortions. This wasn't a federal law but a law in that particular state. Yet many people on the right appeared opposed to it. Walsh asks: if you're claiming this is about states' rights, doesn't the state have the right to pass that law? When conservatives oppose such laws, it appears they're simply pro-abortion.
Retreat Instead of Celebration
What frustrates Walsh most is that what should have been met with celebration was instead met with retreat. The overturning of Roe v. Wade represents one of the great victories for human rights ever achieved in the history of human civilization—and Walsh emphasizes this is not an exaggeration.
Walsh contrasts how the left and right respond to victories. When the left achieves a win, they gloat about it, celebrate it, and immediately look for what they can do next. How can they double down? Where do they take this next? What's the next victory? They're never satisfied.
Meanwhile, many on the right have responded to the overturning of Roe v. Wade with embarrassment. They don't want to talk about it. They seem disappointed that it happened because it's politically inconvenient. Instead of pressing forward, they're retreating—snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
This dynamic, Walsh argues, represents one of the essential differences between the right and left, explaining why the left plays to win while the right plays to comfortably lose.
Conditioning and Messaging Failures
Walsh attributes this conservative tendency partly to conditioning—this is simply the way conservatives have always been. On the particular issue of abortion, he believes the right has never tried the strategy of actually trying to effectively message on this issue.
Walsh's entire life, he's been told that the only way for Republicans to win is to moderate, run away, and compromise on abortion. But there's another approach that's never been seriously attempted: going on offense and taking it to the other side.
The Democrats are the ones who actually support the murder of fully developed infants in the womb who could live outside of the womb. Walsh clarifies that he doesn't think viability matters in terms of whether it's okay to kill them—it's not okay in either case—but this is the mainstream Democrat position right now.
This should be the conversation, Walsh argues. This should be what conservatives are talking about. But instead, conservatives let Democrats set the terms of the debate.
Who Controls the Terms of the Debate
Walsh points out that every time abortion is discussed, the conversation immediately turns to rape, incest, and life of the mother—the less than 1% hard cases. Democrats want to talk about these edge cases exclusively because it allows them to avoid discussing the 99% of cases where abortion is used quite explicitly as a form of birth control.
By allowing Democrats to set the terms of the debate in this way, conservatives let them escape scrutiny of their actual mainstream position while constantly forcing pro-life advocates to defend the most difficult scenarios rather than highlighting the reality of how abortion is predominantly used in America.
