The Charlie Kirk Show - From the Archive: Charlie vs. The University of Illinois on Abortion

Episode Date: April 25, 2026

Is some weird metaphor about a violinist an irrefutable argument against the pro-life position? Probably not, but a student at the University of Illinois tried it on Charlie and it didn't go well for him. In this dive back into the debate archive, Charlie battles Illinois students on the topic his debated more than any other, the right to life.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 noble gold investments.com. That is noble gold investments.com. I'm sure you're familiar with JJ Thompson's argument about abortion, the violinist. Yeah, correct. Okay. So I want to propose like a slightly different take on that, maybe a variation. So if there's a mother and a daughter, the daughter can be a teenager, 20, whatever. And let's say this daughter has some, some kind of condition or organ failure or something

where she needs a body apart from her mom, like a kidney transplant, and only her mom is capable of giving her that kidney transplant. She's the only person for DNA reasons or something. Do you think that mom should be required legally by the government to give her kidney in order to keep the daughter alive? Otherwise, the daughter dies. It's not an analogous situation to her pregnancy.

So why is it not analogous? Well, first of all, because pregnancy, you only last nine months and you don't lose a kidney. Okay, so let's say, okay. You realize when you have a baby, you don't lose a kidney. Okay, so the mother has to give up her kidney for nine months and then she gets it back. How does that work? That's why it's not analogous.

I understand, but if, okay, let's say the mother has to be... So come up with an example that is... Okay, the mother has to be hooked up into the daughter's bloodstream for nine months. Use a real example, not something theoretical. I don't understand. Like, what part... I understand it's theoretical, but what part of this analogy is not... analogous because it doesn't happen I mean of course it doesn't happen but why of course so

then why are we talking about it because it's an analogy it's the analogies don't happen that's the point of analogies well some analogies actually do happen okay so can you think of one that would be rooted in reality an abortion but okay okay let's say like I think the reason you're trying to avoid this is because you realize that the government let's flip this hypothetical around yeah okay let's say that you had a a killer like a very awful disease for nine months, a killer disease. And if you took a magical pill, because we're going to use hypotheticals, that could kill somebody randomly around the world, would you do it? I would not do it now. But, okay. So you would let the other person live?

I would. But, okay, the difference here is that... That's your pro-life? No, I'm, okay, here's my distinction I wanted to make, though. I think there's a very, there's a very important distinction to be made between thinking that abortions are good versus thinking that women should have the choice to have an abortion. Because in our scenario, the mother-daughter, you can argue that the right thing to do, the thing you would want to do, or the thing that I would want someone to do is to donate the kidney and save the daughter. But I think there's kind of an instinct that for the mother, some sort of autonomy, bodily autonomy, perhaps, stands in the way and basically says the government cannot enforce her to do that, even if it's the thing that we would feel is

right for her to do. So what about that situation is different? Is it the mother's DNA? What do you mean? Is the baby in her her DNA? Well, in my first analogy, I guess, yeah. But like, like, it's... But it's a separate human being, right? So every human being should have separate, protected universal rights. Every human... If the daughter, does the mother have the protected universal right to not have her kidney taken to go to the daughter, right? In this scenario. I thought we were... over that one. But so I'm trying, I'm trying to get to at least some semblance of landing the plane here. Yeah. When a woman is pregnant, there's two sets of DNA.

Mother, baby. Okay. If the mother terminates that baby, abortion, then she is basically saying, my DNA matters more than this other human being's DNA. Don't you think a human, a human who is physically, like, entangled with another human has the right purely on bodily autonomy to do that? If someone else is reliant, plugged into my body, do I not have the right to disconnect that and retain? No, you do not have the right to starve another human being of nutrients that would kill them. You do not have a right to do.

If you woke up tomorrow and someone was plugged into you, reliant. Again, that's not going to happen. Use a real example. But you're not addressing the root issue here. The root issue is to be philosophically consistent, a woman or a man, especially a woman in pregnancy, does not have a right to terminate another human being, regardless if it's in their utero, in their nursery. or whether it's in their car. If someone comes up to you and is trying to cause you bodily harm,

like trying to, I don't know, not kill you, but trying to attack you and cause you harm, do you have the right to defend yourself? Well, hold on. Hold on a second. Are you saying that a baby's an invader in a woman's uterus? I mean, in a way it is, right? What? The baby, if, okay, let's say.

Is the baby breaking and entering? In an instance, in an instance of, in an instance of, that's less than, that's less than half of one percent of all the cases. Okay. I am pro-life in all the cases, but let me just say, let's say that we allow abortion and should we then outlaw abortion for all the other cases. I don't think so. Okay, so then we're not even talk about because you're using it as an externality to try to, so let's now talk about the other 99.9% of the cases, right? I agree, I'm down. So now let's, but just to be clear, in the 99.9% of the cases, how did that baby appear? Did it just knock, knock, I want to come in, breaking and entering. How did the baby? Probably accidentally.

accidentally what do you mean like that's like catching covid you didn't like i mean what what did the woman do to get the baby there probably had sex yeah so she made a decision and she'd take responsibility for your orgasms right okay but but if you if you i think there's there's a distinction between there's a distinction between if you're trying to have sex protected or on it doesn't matter what doesn't matter what your intent is the action has a consequence what you okay if you get on a plane and the plane crashes, can we say that you consented to die in a plane crash? Because that was your intent? Well, actually, anyone who gets on a plane knows that when you play certain games, you can win certain prizes. So, okay, there's a... But is it your fault? No, it's probably the

pilot's fault or the DEI person running the area traffic controls fault. Whatever. But more concretely or more realistically, do you agree with the principle that people should take responsibility for their actions? Of course you do. Generally, yes. But I think, In, in... Generally, except, of course, when it involves sex. Of course, people should take responsibility for their actions. But in the scenario where your body is being, like, used by another entity, your body... Your argument would have a lot of merit if babies just appeared.

If all of a sudden, like, a woman woke up... Okay, well, in a case of a baby does... We decided that we're going to put that aside. So you think, you think in cases of abortion should be allowed? Of course, you know why? You do. You do. Because I've been a clip of you saying that... I do not.

Oh, of course, I'm sorry. They should not be allowed. I'll tell you why. I have two ultrasounds in front of me. One is a baby conceived in... One is a baby with a loving family. Which one is which? There's no distinction. Exactly, because they're both human beings. There is a distinction between the mother.

The method of conception does not give you more rights or less rights. Somebody in this auditorium... Hold on. Somebody in this auditorium was conceived in... Who is it? I don't... You don't know, because they're a human being just the same. Human rights are universal. The perception doesn't matter.

And the human rights of the mother are also universal. the bodily autonomy. If you're going to say... Then come on... That right there. Thank you. Like I said, like I said, there's... Being pro-choice is not necessarily being pro-abortion. It's just pro-the-right...

Should I... again, this might sound awfully elementary or pedantic. Yes. But do I have a right to murder you? No, because that would infringe my bodily autonomy. Bingo. So why... No, time out. Why does a mom then have a right...

than have a right to be able to murder the being in her, temporarily. Because that being in her is infringing upon her bodily. If I was infringing on your bodily autonomy, you could murder me. If I came up and tried to attack you, you could murder me. How could you possibly infringing on bodily autonomy because the baby's there for nine months getting nutrients from the mother? Yeah, and like when their birth, they rip a hole in the mother and it caused, like, there are a ton of side consequences that could come out of that. There's all of these, like, it is reliant on the mother's body. So, so, let me just say I'll grant you all of this.

So therefore eliminate the life. Which, which definitionally infringes on that human's rights. Because, okay. The bodily autonomy of the fetus does not, like, does not trump the bodily autonomy of the mother. It's equal. It's equal. They're both human beings. Yes, but the fetus is already infringing upon the autonomy of the mother, no?

What species is the fetus? It's a human. I know. So call it a human, not a fetus. don't use dehumanizing language, to try to make it seem like the compass cells, because it's easier to murder things you cannot see, right? It's easier to eliminate things you cannot witness.

So they use words like fetus, not you. Okay, so the baby... Were you a human being when you were a fetus? I was a... Yes. Okay, great. So therefore, if it's a human being, shouldn't it get human rights, the same as you and I.

Just because it's smaller, just because it can't talk like us, doesn't it deserve human rights? It does as long as it's not infringing upon another human's rights. Wait, hold on, time out. Just like the case... Is my six-month-old who demands... food all the time and can't hunt and gather infringing on my rights and my income because it needs food all the time. No, because it's not hooked up into your body. Hold on, no, no, hold on,

it's in my home. If I don't feed my child, I will go to jail for intentional child starvation. I will get locked up by CPS. So how is it any different to have a six-month-old under my custody, which is infringing on my income, infringing on my rights, infringing on my sleep, infringing on a lot of different things as a father, how is it any different than the nine months up to unbilical court? By the way, how many people in this audience are currently having their tuition paid for by their parents? They're infringing on their parents' income. How is it any different, actually? Folks, let me tell you something straight up. I'm extremely picky about what I put in my body and what companies we support here. Blackout coffee checks every single box. This is a family-run

American company roasting fresh coffee in the USA, built by people who believe. believe in hard work, freedom, and America. No global corporations, no fake activism, no lectures, just darn good coffee made by Americans for Americans. This is coffee that actually stands for something, and I drink it every day right here on the show. From Morning Reaper and Brutal Awakening to 1776 Dark Roast and their 2A medium roast, they've got something for everyone.

They even have instant coffee, real blackout coffee with no machine, no mess. Just add water, stir, and you're ready to roll. Go to blackout coffee.com slash Charlie and use code Charlie for 20% off your first order. That's blackout coffee.com slash Charlie. Blackout coffee.com slash Charlie. And for an even better deal, sign up for Blackout Coffee subscription. Save money, get free shipping, enter free coffee through their rewards program just for drinking what you already love. Your coffee shows up fresh on schedule and you never run out.

That's blackout coffee.com slash Charlie. Check it out. promo code Charlie. You don't think that there is a difference between the baby after it's born versus the baby? What's the difference? Okay, because while it is in utero, while the woman is pregnant, it can cause the woman physical harm. It is life-threatening. There are a ton of cases where it can cause all kinds of things to happen,

and it is physically hooked up into your body. It incapacitates you to some extent. I encourage you, you have such like a lot, just so we are clear that babies can infect moms with terrible diseases. Like, babies are like disease mongers by the time that they're age one. No, but here's the point is that there are risks at every point of human development. There are risks when the baby is two weeks old. There's a risk when they're 16 years old and they start driving. Then they're a risk to all of humanity. But you don't think there's a fundamental difference. No. When they're physically connected into your industry. Let's play this out.

If the idea of somebody being physically connected, right now there are tens of thousands of babies right now and what is called NICU. It's a neonatal intensive care unit. They're 26, 27, 28 weeks. They cannot breathe on their own. They have contraptions and machines all around, and it's extremely expensive. Hold on. It's extremely expensive for the parents. They have to go hundreds of thousands of dollars into debt. Do they have a right to say, you know what, that baby and NICU, it's going to cost us 300 grand as all these machines. Do they have a right to pull the plug on that baby? Do you think... Answer the question. I don't think so. But do you think... How is it any different than what it's in utero? Because it's not bodily autonomy. Do you think

they would have a right to go pull someone random off the street and hook up the baby into that person's bloodstream because the baby would die otherwise. If the NICU machine doesn't exist, what do you think? If, okay, if the NICU machine didn't exist and you had to pull a random person off the street to save that baby's life. Again, none of that is even remotely relevant in a hypothetical. You're dodging this because you understand that the person. The answer is no, because it's not applicable what I'm saying. But again, I, in some ways you're overthinking it, in some ways you're underthinking it. Let me just kind of of end with this, that human development at its very core, irrefutably, starts at conception. I believe human life and human development start the same. You can have your own thoughts on that,

but human development, our process human beings, start when our deoxybo nucleic acid as a zygote attaches to the uterine wall. That is when life begins, like irrefutably. I'm not arguing that. I never want to argue. But allow me to finish. And then we'll get to the next question. Therefore, at every step of the process of development, you have the same human rights as when you're 18 or 30 or 40. And the most fundamental of all those rights is life. And if we cannot defend your life right, then what good are we defending all of your other rights?

Final point. So I still think, I really don't think it would hurt you to answer the original analogy. I think you see where it would go that you can't infringe upon someone's bodily autonomy in order to save someone else's life. Do you agree with that? Well, hold on, time out.

Just so we are clear, we infringe on people's bodily autonomy all the time. Want me to give you an example? We drafted men into World War II to go fight for this nation. That infringed on their bodily autonomy. We told them that your time is not your own, your passion is not your own, you must go run onto Normandy Beach.

Would you agree that is an infringement on bodily autonomy? It is, but the government has the right to do that to uphold the nation, right? There's a difference... Saving babies upholds the nation, my friend, all the time. How? In the same way as fighting a war? Yeah, even more so. In fact, reducing abortions by a million a year would be an enrichment of our society. We might find the next Einstein, the next Nikola Tesla. We might have the next Michael Jordan that is being aborted every day. The government's, I think the government's right to be able to do that, I think, needs to be justified by some reason that it affects the government. It doesn't affect the government to terminate a baby in pregnancy.

You don't think a million abortions a year affects anybody. I'm not saying it affects nobody, but I'm saying in the same, what you're saying, it affects people in the same way that the government not being able to have an army does? I would actually think it's an even bigger moral crisis than not being able to enlist an army. You think it's a moral crisis. If you are massacring a million of your own people every year, that's a bigger problem than being able to properly staff the Marine Corps. Okay, so you think we're mastering the people, but we also, are forcing women. No, but just to go back to your analogy,

just so we're clear, the government does infringe on bodily autonomy in times of national crisis. Yes, in terms of national crisis. Again, I even reject... What is the national crisis that resulted? Murder, a million a year. That's a crisis. Okay.

Right? If I told you that a million people are murdered a year, blanket, you would say, boy, that's a big problem. In fact, we used to call that the Holocaust. Okay. Yeah. Okay. In fact, right? I mean, you would say,

so just so we're clear, Holocaust went for about six to seven years, six to seven million people died. I understand. We remember it. I know a lot about the Holocaust. It was a Holocaust. Yes, it was a crisis. So how is abortion not a crisis?

Because there are smaller human beings? The unborn, the baby, the fetuses. Hold on. You said baby, therefore it's murder. It's a baby. It's a baby. Whatever you want to call it. I still think if, okay.

Whatever you want to call it. Okay. I think the big distinction here is that that baby, that child, is still infringing upon someone else's body using their body. And I think the owner of that body should decide. I might even grant you that. The point being is that throughout history, we are able to sometimes say

that in order for life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, defeating the Nazis in World War II, there is a greater good. And I will say that what is the greater good? That those that are being massacred in the womb can have life because life is good, and it's the first of all human rights.

And that's the last question. Are you glad you weren't aborted? Of course I'm glad. Then why wouldn't you want to give that gift to millions of other people? Do you want to give the gift? What about, There are mothers that die in medical situations all the time.

That is a red herring. No one wants those mothers to die, but it is a fact that if we outlawed abortion, 99% of them, all of a sudden we'd have a 990,000 increase in our population every year, and we'd have a much more life. Those children would be raised in household. See, that is a cynical view. You know, there's over 2 million people on the adoption waiting list every year, and there are a million abortions.

We have twice as many people that want to adopt than actually abortions. in this country. There's no such thing as an unwanted child. And I refuse to live under the bigotry of low expectations where we can justify, oh, they're going to have a bad life or they're going to grow up in a crime-ridden neighborhood. I'm sorry, I know you don't mean it. That's how you get to eugenics. If you start to all of a sudden say that their life is going to be terrible, therefore we can eliminate them. Therefore, I'm not, I'm not, that is exactly the point you were making. No, I'm started with the bodily autonomy thing. No, no, but eventually, you know, you interject. You're granted for a moment there. You granted for a moment the thing about the...

No, I said if I were to grant you the bodily autonomy, it doesn't even bear out that at times the government can actually take possession of your bodily autonomy. When did Roe v. Wade started, like 60s, right? From the 1960s... 70-something, okay. From then until now, until Trump banned abortion, what national crisis has arisen? Has there been like a national crisis? Because all of these babies have been aborted? Like what... Fifty-five million souls that never had a chance to live. That's a beyond a national crisis. It didn't affect our, we didn't lack scientists or politicians because of unborn babies. How do you know?

I mean, we, like, there was, there was no. So you know all 55 million identities and what they could have achieved in their dreams? I mean, at some point you have to take a step back and say, boy, when 55 million people never had a chance at life, that's kind of dark. What does that say for a society? 55 million, I don't know if all of them wanted to have an abortion, but millions of women. didn't want to be pregnant and were forced to continue being pregnant against their will, like that affected their physical bodies. Again, we're going in circles, but outside of, if you don't want to get pregnant,

then save yourself for marriage and stop having so much sex with everybody. Certainly, do not murder babies as an excuse for your gratuitous sex. All right, I'm so excited. The weather is finally warming up, which means grilling season is basically here. Sorry if you live in a colder part of the country. Where I'm at, it's grilling season. And if you're anything like me, you're already thinking about planning your first backyard barbecue of the year. For me, I already know what's going on the grill, and that's good ranchers.

Good ranchers partners with local farmers and ranchers to deliver 100% American meat straight to your door. It's pasture raised, no antibiotics, and no added hormones. It's the kind of quality that you can actually feel good about serving other people around your table. And they just launched custom boxes. Now you can build your own box with the cuts your family loves, steaks for green. grilling, chicken for weeknight dinners, or whatever you reach for the most. Start your plan today, and you'll get free meat included with every order. And with our code Charlie, you'll get $25 off your first order.

That's free meat with every order and $25 off your first order with code Charlie when you start your plan at good ranchers.com. Good ranchers.com, American Meat, delivered. I'm currently agnostic, like normatively. I'm leaning towards prone choice in the virtue. of the facts that I take it that pro-life views ultimately fail in accounting for like relevant data being like the facts of the conversation like biological philosophical and identity information and I'm not convinced that identity is reductable down to the physical properties or the organism

I think we are our mind are we just a mind what do you mean you tell me you're making the contention I think I think our identity is down to our mind yes just consciousness or the mind you had to explain what you mean yeah the mind is just going to be like sentient Okay, so what's your contention? I think they fail because, like, I don't think that the being, like, one is at conception is the same being that they are now. And I don't mean that like descriptively. I take it that you are like your mind and before a certain week in gestation there is no mind or sentience, right?

And thus no person, just physical properties, and that would eventually be informed by that said mind. Okay, yeah, I'm not totally following what you're saying because you're using the word mind, which is not usually a word. Yeah, I just said that like mind is like sentience, like, have to be informed by that. I mean, the human's subjective experience, yes. So what is your contention then? That you're not persuaded by? Yeah, I'm not persuaded by pro-like views that we are reductable down to our organism. Okay, yeah.

So an 85-year-old and an old person's home that has Alzheimer's, are they less of a human than you? I didn't say that they were less of a human for having Alzheimer's. And to the question, because they have... Yeah, so people with Alzheimer's still have the capacity for subjective experience. They can't remember anything. Memory isn't sentience, no. It's a part of sentience, isn't it?

Yeah, it's not going to be the, I'm not going to say that the full capacity for sentience is going to be, like, what grants them that, like, moral consideration. I'm telling you that any level of sentience, which is why I hold a cautionary principle, but, like, at any level of sentience is going to grant them moral consideration. When does human development begin? What do you mean? Human life? Human development. It's going to be at conception, yeah. That's human life.

Yeah, human life begins at conception. I'm not contending that. No, no, got it. So then shouldn't our laws then protect the first possible moment of human development? Why should they? Well, because it's a human life. That's begging it, the question. Well, no, it's actually not...

No, you're just telling me what the human is. You're not telling me why they should deserve race. Oh, so, like, why murder is bad? Like, do we need to do that? You're going to have to explain as to why, like, abortion is going to be the unjustified unaliving. You're just telling me that it's an... Because murder is inherently unjustified.

You're just telling me that it's inherently unjustified. You're going to need to tell me why it's unjustified. Well, personally, I think murder is wrong. It's pretty intuitive, right? Yeah, it's intuitive, but you're going to need to tell me why abortion fits within that unjust category. Okay, because you're your own unique deoxoribonuclacate acid at the time of conception. DNA?

Yes, DNA. Thank you. Yes, when you attach to the uterine wall and the moment at that time, your life began when your DNA was formed. Absent intervention, you then form into a fully developed adult, and you do not have a right to interrupt the development of another human being. You do not have a right to interrupt a six-month-old or a six-year-old from growing or flourishing. You do not have a right to be able to do that. That is a basic, self-evident moral

principle that just because you are larger or just because you're older, you're able to interrupt another human being from growing. Yeah, I didn't say any of that, but sure. So do you think that... Okay. Well, I don't really know what you did say, actually. That's okay. Do you? Yeah. So what did you say? Yeah, so I said that we're reducible to our, reducible to our mind. Our mind is what makes our identity. And I said my contention was that we are not reducible to this like organism. All right. Yeah, again, so we have clarity but not agreement. We believe you're more than just consciousness. We believe a human being is in essence valuable because it is a human being. This deduces back. What do you mean by being?

What do I mean by a human being? Yeah. A homo sapien. Okay, sure. I was asking simply because some people denounce being to be personhood. That's all I'm asking. Okay. But sure. So are you Are you familiar with a partial molar pregnancy? A partial molar pregnancy. Yes. Not necessarily. Okay, a partial molar pregnancy is where one egg drops and two sperm go in. And it's going to basically create this like ball of fat,

but it's still going to be human alive and obviously of the human species. Should the mother be obligated to carry that partial molar pregnancy? I don't know enough about that. Okay. So I can get back to you on that one. Okay, sure. Do you think, what do you like value, do you value it being like a human being? Yes, human beings inherently are valuable.

Yeah, why are they inherently valuable? Well, you want my religious definition or do you want my biological one? Either one's fine. Okay, well, I believe every human being is made in the image of God, and therefore it's uniquely designed and crafted and created. And since every human being is made in the image of God, we do not have the authority morally to destroy. another being that bears the image of the creator.

Okay, sure. Yeah, so the idea, I believe, that God grounds this intrinsic value in a fetus, I don't think satisfies that. I'm using them colloquially. I'm not using them to dehumanize. I'll use child, baby, whatever. Because intrinsic value is also expected under, like, the atheistic, like, hypothesis. So I don't know what kind of argument you're making here because, unfortunately,

like God itself is just not going to ground that a fetus is inherently valuable. Okay, you asked for my scriptural analysis, but okay, let's just take... Yeah, and I have contention with it. Let's just... It is grounded under atheism, too. Right, so therefore, okay, if you would agree that your life is valuable, my life is valuable, yeah? I believe we're valuable because of our sentience, yeah, sure. Okay, yeah, so we disagree.

So, but if a being is going to get sentience in a couple of weeks, shouldn't you allow that being to continue to develop? After it's born? No, no, no, in utero. In utero, no. I don't find it to be morally considerable before sentience. Oh, got it. So you can eliminate anything even though it's growing towards sentience. Yeah, so are you making like a potential argument?

Well, I'm just making a rather rational one. Just so we are clear, just, you know, when a baby is born, your mental faculties of a baby are not completely sentient. Like, for example, when a baby is five days old, they're only awake like two hours a day, they can't speak, they cannot really reason. And sentience is like barely there for a one week old or a two week old. In fact, a brain is not fully developed until a boy is 30 years old.

So what I'm saying is that the growth of the human being continues all throughout this process. If you allow that process to go uninterrupted, the abortionist argument is that we are going to interfere with that development because of some convenient, it's too hard to raise the human being. Okay, yeah, so, yeah, so I think you're, like, making this, like, it has the potential to actualize sentience, sure. But also, like, if it's going to gain sentience in three weeks, I just said, no, it's not going to be morally considerable to, you know, not be unaligned, or killed, sorry. But, yeah, so I kind of forgot one point that you made. What was it? So just so we are clear, like, humans are bodies and minds. Yeah, so.

We are more than just... Wait, I remember the point that you made about the baby. Yeah, so we gain sentience in the womb. Are you aware of that? Yeah, around eight week, nine to ten weeks, brain waves are detected. What's the argument for nine to ten weeks? Brain waves? Yeah, brain waves?

Yeah, okay, you got to like, you're a little snarky. You got to, like, calm a down with it, okay? Okay, cool. Yeah. So around nine to ten weeks, brain waves are detected. A baby can respond to a mother's voice around 27 weeks. Around 20 weeks, we have some understanding that a baby's cognitive ability is being formed.

These are approximations. Yeah. What is the argument that brain waves are sentience? What is the, we actually don't know. We're inferring it. Yeah, so sentience is going to be the subjective experience where you can have interest, desires, and motivations. And I find it that, hold on, hold on, hold on.

How do you know a newborn has interest, desires, and motivations? Yeah, so I find it that they have the subjective experience, and I said it can include things like interest desires, which is going to include people like you or me, and we have interest, desires, and motivations, yeah. So I also find it that they're going to have a subjective human experience at, I'd say, within the second trimester. I don't hold 20 to 24 weeks or after that. I hold a 12-week cautionary stance because we know that they don't get sentient in the first trimester.

You want to go all the way on this? Let's do it. What proof do you have that anyone is sentient? Yeah, so we have proof that they're sentient on the basis of their phallema cortical connections. It's actually a faith claim. And their conjunctions with their cerebrum. It's a faith claim. Are you going to make an argument for that?

Yes, definitionally, you don't know that anybody else's sent in except yourself. How? Because you cannot prove consciousness. We don't know where consciousness exists in the brain. In fact, we don't know. We don't know where it is. You can't see somebody else. Are you going to expand on why we don't know?

Yeah, again, I'm getting there. Like, did I teach you to talk like this at University of Illinois? Like, you're paying for this? Like, geez. Again, I want to get to the other questions. But, like, yes, this is called the conscious. paradox, you do not know if anybody else actually has consciousness except yourself. Everybody else could be an illusion, it could be a mirage, it could be a projection of artificial

intelligence. Sentience is by definition a faith claim. We can guess it, we can infer it. You cannot measure it, and you cannot see it. Yeah, sure. I'm going to make the claim on the basis of like it. I didn't agree. I was just saying, okay, sure.

But anyways, so I'm going to make the claim on the basis of empirical data that we have thalamacortical connections that work in conjunction with our cerebrum that is going to allow us to have thoughts, desires, and motivations and have the human subjective experience, which those, the mind, sentience, is what makes us able to have complex intelligence and higher rationale as humans. Right. Again, so all of that, you could detect the effects of consciousness. You cannot actually see consciousness itself. Does seeing consciousness matter? We see it in their like neurological structures and mechanisms. Again, you see the effects of it. We can keep on going in circles. Of course, I believe sanctions exist. You cannot measure it. You cannot see it. Because you cannot, there is no,

there is no objective proof that somebody else's sentient except yourself. You can just look at the effects of it. But that's fine. Again, we just disagree. We as pro-lifers believe that in the essence of a human being is your value and your worth. If a human being is at one week or 10 weeks or 12 weeks, the process of development starts at conception and goes all the way through. higher faculties, higher rationality is an added bonus alongside the growth curve of what it means to be a human being. And you do not become more human because your IQ is higher or less human or if you have down syndrome. The spectrum does not work that way. You're equally human all the way through. For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to charliekirk.com.