The Charlie Kirk Show - From the Archive: Charlie Stands For the Right To Life

Episode Date: October 12, 2026

One of Charlie's most debated topics was abortion, and he was virtually certain to get asked about it at just about every campus debate he conducted. At Purdue University, Charlie  educates a young man who equates abortion to welcoming in a homeless person, and offers a thorough defense of the unborn that is a model any Christian could learn from. Watch every episode ad-free on members.charliekirk.com!    Get new merch at charliekirkstore.com!Support the show: http://www.charliekirk.com/supportSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

My name is Charlie Kirk. I run the largest pro-American student organization in the country fighting for the future of our republic. My call is to fight evil and to proclaim truth. If the most important thing for you is just feeling good, you're going to end up miserable. But if the most important thing is doing good, you will end up purposeful. College is a scam, everybody. You've got to stop sending your kids to college. You should get married as young as possible and have as many kids as possible. Go start a turning point USA college chapter. Go start a turning point you would say high school chapter.

Go find out how your church can get involved. Sign up and become an activist. I gave my life to the Lord in fifth grade. Most important decision I ever made in my life and I encourage you to do the same. Here I am. Lord, use me. Buckle up, everybody. Here we go.

Noble Gold Investments is the official gold sponsor of the Charlie Kirk Show, a company that specializes in gold IRAs and physical delivery of precious metals. Learn how you could protect your wealth with noble gold investments at noblegoldinvestments.com. That is noblegoldinvestments.com. Just a reminder, if you disagree, you guys can work your way up. And yes, hello. I'm a disagreeer, but first, I really do respect to engage with college students and promote open dialogue. Thank you for that. And I want to try to argue my case. So I'm pro choice, and I want to share why. My reasoning is, let's say, I have a homeless adult kid who knocks on my door to Blizzard. If I don't let them in,

He will die of the cold. I might choose to let him in, but the law does not force me to let him in. You've been saying that no one is legally required to give others their housing or support, even if it means saving their life. So here's my question. If we agree that people can't be legally forced to use their homes to save someone, why should women be legally forced to use their bodies to sustain a fetus, especially in the first trimester when it can't survive its own?

It's a good faith question. So taking rape outside of my answer, because rape would invalidate what I'm about to say, how about 99% of the cases are non-rape abortions, which is the analogy actually falls apart or the metaphor because you actually do invite the homeless person into your home. That's what happens when you have sex. You invite the baby into your uterus. So you could be pro-choice, be pro-choice of whether or not you're going to have sex. It's not always a choice. Sometimes the condom can break. Oh, no, no, no, no, you don't have to have sex.

That's the point. Having sex is not a human need. Eating and showering is, but, you know, you can wait until you're married. You actually don't have to have sex. Here's my counterpoint to that, though. If I'm driving a car, I'm taking the chance that there could be a kid if there's, like, a bike lane right next to me. This actually happened recently close to my home,

where there's someone on a lime scooter on like a bike line right next to me. He fell off his lime scooter. and he got hit by a car and the kid died. That's really sad. It was the life that ended. But I didn't have to go to drive. I didn't have to drive in my car. The person didn't have to drive in the car

with the kid, but he took the risk. In the end, the law still doesn't punish the driver because it wasn't his fault. He did everything that he possibly could, and he didn't have to drive. You're equating having sex with driving, just to be clear. My analogy is that someone is my choice to drive a car or not,

but I'm still taking the risk. But if someone... Well, hold on, but if you're driving, a car and you do run somebody over, you could be susceptible to manslaughter laws. I could be susceptible to that, but if it's not my fault, then I don't get a manslaughter law. And what happened in this case is that they didn't get a manslaughter law? Then let's go further. At what point is something your fault?

It's very circumstantial. No, but like what is the intent threshold when something is your fault? If you intentionally try to cause an action, then it's your fault. I agree. Like an abortion. They did not intentionally do it. There's nothing they could have done. Like an abortion, you intentionally cause a result.

I'm intentionally causing an abortion. Yeah, you're intentionally causing an abortion, so with intent standard, you are eliminating a human life. In the end, it's still the woman's choice to do it. She wants their home. I can do whatever I want in my home. If I want to kick a homeless person on my home, even if I know that he's going to die in the street,

I'm allowed to kick that homeless person out of my house, even though that means he'll die. And that's really sad that a human life will die. I agree with this, a human in the body. I agree with that. But if a person will still die, still my choice. is still legally might just get first out at home.

Let's play this out. Let's just, just, okay. Because your analogy is, sounds rational, but it's not. Can a mother of a one-year-old kick her baby out of her house? No.

Well, she can set up for adoption. No, but why can't she just leave it on the side of the street? Isn't that a child abandonment law? There's a great area between setting someone to go up to an adoption center, which is a really easy thing to do to just drop them off at a fire station,

which you're allowed to set up someone for a job. adoption. No, but hold on. You said that you don't have to, you do not have to give care to someone who knocks on your door. That's your whole contention. Legally correct. Right. So, but if you have a one-year-old baby, you can either give them care or you can put them up for adoption. You have one of two choices. That's my stance when it comes to the baby in the womb. In the baby in the womb is different. How is it a different? You're this physically taking over the woman's womb. It causes physical, emotional, mental damage to the woman when it's in the

womb. But how is that, how is that, how does that at all diminish or increase the value of of the human life. The human life is so important. I'm not saying that abortion is not tragic, but what I am saying is that the woman's right to choose what she does to their own body is also important. The right to self-autonomy is also important. But doesn't the baby also have a right to self-autonomy?

I agree, and the person who's homeless and will die if I don't lend in the house also has the right to self-automy, but he doesn't have the right to self-conomy if it means that he's infringing on my own rights. Your homeless example, again, further falls apart. if they knock on a hospital or a police station or a fire station, they are welcomed in. So there are places for homeless people to be able to get care. There's no place for an unborn child to get care if they walk into an abortion. That's a societal obligation, not an individual private obligation.

I agree. That's why abortion's bodies are on private one. I agree that's why abortion should be illegal because we have a societal obligation to protect every life. It's a private person's womb. It's a private person's house. They're both private property belongs to the individual person. You think the womb is private, like... It is the woman's womb.

If you've ever skipped the doctor because you couldn't afford it, you need to hear this. Christian Healthcare Ministries is the Christian alternative to health insurance. In under 10 minutes, you can join and start saving hundreds of dollars every month. As a member, you have freedom to get the best care at an affordable price with programs starting at $115 a month. I'll say that again, $150 a month. Just think of how you can put those savings back into your everyday needs. And in 2027, CHM isn't raising their prices. So you can kick off the new year with stable and affordable assurance.

When you switch, you're not just getting more savings and freedom. Your contributions help other believers to. Start today by visiting chmistries.org slash Charlie and use the promo code Charlie for a 50% credit toward your first month. That's chmistries.org slash Charlie. Use the promo code Charlie. Got it. But is it her DNA that's forming? Half of her DNA and it doesn't matter. Hold on it.

If it's a separate person with her own unique DNA. If it's not your DNA, why is it your choice? Because it's living in my own house. If it's a random homeless person, I can still come out even if it means that he will die. Yeah, I just... It's my choice to do that. It's such an incredibly morally perverse argument to make. Moral or not legally does not revolve around your morals.

Well, of course it does. I mean, laws are a reflection of my own. morality. It's why we have murder laws, right? That's why we say you can't steal. Every law is a reflection of some moral truth. For stealing, it doesn't directly affect you. If I try to murder someone. Of course it. Of course it does. You're stealing to directly affect someone else. You're not stealing because you have to steal. You're doing it because you're choosing to actively steal. For a baby going into a person's womb, the mom's not killing the baby because she wants to kill the baby. She's telling the baby because it's taking her own organs and causing the physical

stress and safety of her own body. I need to get back to one contention. though, do you believe in the generally that people should take responsibility for their own actions? Yes. Okay. So then... But if it's not their fault, then no. But by fault, they made a decision to have sex 99.9.9% of the time. Just like... But by doing so... 99% is rape and even still abortion laws, but 99% is the opposite. It's the opposite. 99% of the time it's a form of birth control. So essentially, you would agree that it being a form of birth control, Basically, it's a oopsie. I'm just going to eliminate a human life because I have autonomy of my own body. You're willingly taking the risk of that birth control potentially failing, but you're also doing that when you're driving a car. If I go to a mechanic and he checks at my brakes, if he checks that my brakes are okay,

I'm still taking the risk that my car can still work. I agree with the analogy. No, in no way is that even close to the same. You're taking the risk in both chances and both can't kill a person. So never drive? Wait, you're saying that having sex could potentially result in the death of a person? You have the chance of getting pregnant and if you don't want to get pregnant.

Yes, and then you have an obligation to allow that life to grow. Because universal human equality applies to all human beings regardless of how small they are or where they are, just because you're within a human, within a womb. And to play out that analogy further, you know, you say that, well, it's drawing from the mom's nutrients and it's changing her organs. Just so we are clear, the mom's nutrients continue when the baby's six months old.

Have you ever heard of breastfeeding? The mom's organs continue to change after birth. Can she then eliminate the six-month-old saying, I don't want to feed that six-month-old. You can put it up for adoption, yes. Well, no, why can't she murder it? Because at that point, she has a choice to save the baby. If you can save the baby, you can.

Oh, I'm saying a viability. You could save the baby at 23 weeks. I agree with you. I'm saying first trimester when the baby, the baby is not viable. Okay. So now we're getting somewhere. And I said that at the beginning of my open statement too.

The viability standard is, I mean, very questionable. When does human development begin? At conception. I agree to say human person inside you, but the problem is that you're taking the woman's own part. And so, like, if the baby can come out of the woman and still be alive, then I agree abortion should not apply. And that should be an individual case of the doctor to determine that. But if it's taking directly from the woman and the baby has to be able to be. to die in order for the baby to come out.

Let me just conclude in this. Every baby will take from something else necessarily for the first three years. A baby will not hunt and gather and a baby can't go get a job. So by definition, every baby, whether it's six months in the womb or six months outside of the womb, is dependent on an exterior force. So that moral threshold of viability actually does not continue out. It would be one thing if a baby is born, all of a sudden the baby says, okay, let's get to work and let's, you know, go, you know, become a janitor.

A child is actually highly dependent and only viable in the sense that it can breathe and clean its bladder. However, there are millions of baby born in NICU units across the country, neonatal intensive care units, that have all sorts of machines and contraptions that do and simulate the work of the gestational process. So I can understand your argument. I just think it's incredibly morally troubling to see. say that a woman has so much autonomy over her own body, therefore you are allowed to then eliminate murder or kill if it makes your life a little bit difficult. Well, do you agree to disagree? There's one more point I want to make quickly, too,

is that you compare abortion to the Holocaust a lot? Can you explain on the first? It's actually worse than the Holocaust. Explain why? 55 million babies have been killed since. Compared to how many in the Holocaust? Six million, yeah. Okay, so would you say it's by ratio 55 to six times worse? No, there's an evil, that was in the Holocaust that is not quite manifested in the abortion industry, which was the intentional extermination of a specific type of people. I agree. Now, part of the abortion industry also has a lot of anti-black eugenics philosophy as the basis from

Margaret Sanger, but I would say there was this very specific unique evil in the Holocaust that we've not seen replicated in many other times, which is that we want to eliminate a certain time of people, but by scale it is far worse. That's good. I've heard in a lot of base you've said that the Holocaust is a time less as important as abortion because there's eight times left people have been murdered, but my point is that they're unique circumstances. They are unique.

Thank you for your time. Appreciate it. Thanks. For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to charliekirk.com.