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

00:00:03 Speaker 1: 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 gonna end up miserable. But if the most important thing is doing good, you'll end up purposeful. College is a scam, everybody. You 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 at turning point, you would say, college chapter. Go start attorny point, you 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 Kirkshaw, a company that specializes in gold eye rays and physical delivery of precious metals. Learn how you could protect your wealth with Noble Gold Investments at noblegold investments dot Com. That is Noblegoldinvestments dot Com. 00:01:17 Speaker 2: 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 there's a mother and a daughter. The daughter can be a teenager or twenty whatever. And let's say this daughter has some uh some kind of condition or organ failure or something where she needs a body part from her mom, like a kidney transplant, and only her mom is capable of giving her that 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? 00:01:58 Speaker 1: Otherwise the daughter dies. It's not an Nagura analogous situation, right, So why is it not analogous? Well, first of all, because pregnancy will last nine months and you don't lose a kidney. Okay. So let's say, okay, you realize when you're you have a baby, you don't lose ok Okay. 00:02:11 Speaker 2: So the mother has to give up her kiddie for nine months and then she gets a back. 00:02:14 Speaker 1: How does that work. It doesn't. That's why it's not an analogous. I understand. But if okay, let's say come up with an example that is. 00:02:23 Speaker 2: Okay, the mother has to be hooked up into the daughter's bloodstream for nine months. 00:02:27 Speaker 1: Use it. Use a real example, not something theoretical. 00:02:30 Speaker 2: I I don't understand, Like what 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? And then why are we talking about it? Because it's an analogy. It's the analogies don't happen. That's the point of analogy. 00:02:45 Speaker 1: Well, some analogies actually do happen. Okay, So can you think of one that would be rooted in reality? An abortion? 00:02:52 Speaker 2: But okay, okay, let's say, like, I think the reason you're trying to avoid this is because you realize that the government. 00:02:58 Speaker 1: But let's flip this hypothiat around. Okay, Let's say that you had a killer disease, 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. 00:03:27 Speaker 2: Here's here's my distinction I wanted to make though. I think 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. Do right 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 Kenyan and save the daughter. But I think there's kind of an instinct that for the mother, some sort of autonomy, bodily autonomy perhaps is 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. 00:04:06 Speaker 1: For her to do. So what what about that situation? Is it? Is it the mother's DNA? What do you mean is the baby in her her DNA? 00:04:15 Speaker 2: Well, in my first analogy, I guess, yeah, but like. 00:04:19 Speaker 1: But it's a separate human being, right, So every human being should have separate, protected universal rights everything. 00:04:27 Speaker 2: If if the daughter does it, does the mother have the protected universal right to not have her kidney taken to go to the daughter? Right? 00:04:34 Speaker 1: In this 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 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 beings DNA. 00:04:57 Speaker 2: 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. 00:05:10 Speaker 1: No, you do not have the right to starve another human being, oatrians that would kill me if you will. 00:05:14 Speaker 2: You do not have a right if you woke up tomorrow and someone was plugged into you. 00:05:17 Speaker 1: Really, yeah, that's not going to happen. Use a real exa you're not. You're not. 00:05:20 Speaker 2: You're not addressing the root, the root issue here. 00:05:22 Speaker 1: The root 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. 00:05:36 Speaker 2: If someone 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? 00:05:45 Speaker 1: Well, hold on them, Hold on a second. Are you saying that a baby's an invader in a woman's uterus? 00:05:50 Speaker 2: I mean, in a way it is right what the baby if. 00:05:55 Speaker 1: Okay, let's say, is the baby breaking and entering. 00:05:58 Speaker 2: In it in an instance, in an intense in an instance. 00:06:01 Speaker 1: Of that's less than that's less than half of one percent of all the cases. So 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 so much. Okay, So then we're not even to talk about because you're using it as an externality to try to So let's now talk about the other ninety nine point nine percent of the cases. Right, So now let's but just to be clear, in the ninety nine point nine percent of the cases, how did that baby appear? Did it just knock knock? I want to come in breaking and entering? How did debate? 00:06:33 Speaker 2: Probably accidentally? 00:06:34 Speaker 1: Well, not accidentally? What do you mean, like, let's like catching COVID you didn't like, I mean, what did the woman do to get the baby there? Probably had sex? Yes, so she made a decision and she'd take responsibility for your orgasms. 00:06:46 Speaker 2: 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. 00:06:56 Speaker 1: On It doesn't matter, what doesn't matter what your intent is. The action has a consequence. If you okay, if you. 00:07:01 Speaker 2: 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? 00:07:07 Speaker 1: Well, actually, anyone who gets on a plane knows that when you play certain games, you could win certain prizes. 00:07:11 Speaker 2: So so okay, there's a. 00:07:14 Speaker 1: There's is it your fault. Now it's probably the pilot's fault, or the DEI person running the area, traffic controls fault, whatever. But the more more, 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 generally except of course, of course. 00:07:36 Speaker 2: People should take responsibility for their actions. But in the in the scenario where your body is being uh like used by another entity, your body. 00:07:45 Speaker 1: Your argument would have a lot of merit if babies just appeared, if all of a sudden, like a woman. That's what we decided that we're going to put that aside because we think you. 00:07:54 Speaker 2: Think in cases of abortion should be allowed. 00:07:56 Speaker 1: Of course you know why you do. I do not, And of course I'm sorry they should not be a love I'll tell you what. 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, somebody in this auditorium. Hold on, somebody in this auditorium was conceived and who is it? I don't. You don't know, because they're a human beings just the same human rights or universal. 00:08:28 Speaker 2: Exception doesn't matter, And the human rights of the mother are also universal the body of the autonomy. 00:08:33 Speaker 1: If you're going to say, then come on that right there, thank you? 00:08:43 Speaker 2: Like I said, Like I said, there's but being pro choice is not necessarily being pro abortion. 00:08:50 Speaker 1: It's just pro right. Should I again this this might sound awfully elementary or pedantic. Yes, but do I have a right to murder you? 00:08:58 Speaker 3: No? 00:08:59 Speaker 1: Because that would infer my bodily autonomy? Bingo, So so why no time out? Why does a mom then have a right to be able to murder the being in her? 00:09:08 Speaker 2: Being in her is afringing upon her bodily If I was infringing on your bodily autonomy, you can murder me if I came up and. 00:09:13 Speaker 1: Trying to attack you, you how could you possibly infringing on bodily autonomy? Because the baby's there for nine months getting nutrients from the mother. 00:09:22 Speaker 2: Yeah, and and like when their birth they rip a hole in the mother and cause like there's a ton of side consequences that could come out of that. 00:09:29 Speaker 1: There's all of these like it. It is reliant on the mother's body, so it's a let me just say, I'll grant you all of this. So therefore, eliminate the life which which definitionally infringes on that humans rights. 00:09:44 Speaker 2: Because okay, the the the bodily autonomy of the fetus does not like does. 00:09:51 Speaker 1: Not trump the body of autonomy. It's because they're both human beings. Yes, but the fetus is already infringing. What species is the fetus? It's a human eye, so call it a human not a fetus. Don't use dehumanizing language to try to make it seem like the compass eels. 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. Were you a human being when you were fetus? I was? 00:10:17 Speaker 3: Yes? 00:10:17 Speaker 1: Okay, great? So therefore, 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? 00:10:26 Speaker 2: It does, as long as it's not infringing upon another human's rights. 00:10:29 Speaker 1: Just hold on, time out. 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. It hooked up into your body. Hold on, no, 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 unbiblical cords. 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. Okay, how is it any different? 00:11:13 Speaker 4: Actually, folks, let me tell you something straight up. I'm extremely picky about what I put in my body in what companies we support. 00:11:24 Speaker 3: Here. 00:11:25 Speaker 4: Blackout Coffee checks every single box. This is a family run American company roasting fresh coffee in the USA, built by people who 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 seventeen seventy six dark Roasts in their two A 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 Blackoutcoffee dot com slash Charlie and use code Charlie for twenty percent off your first order. That's Blackoutcoffee dot com slash Charlie. Blackoutcoffee dot com slash Charlie, and for an even better deal, sign up for Blackout Coffee subscription. Save money, get free shipping, and earn 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. 00:12:25 Speaker 1: That's Blackoutcoffee dot com slash Charlie. Check it out promo code Charlie. 00:12:31 Speaker 2: You you don't think that there is a difference between the baby after it's born versus the big that'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. It can cause all kinds of things to happen. And it is physically hooked up into your body. It incapacitates you to some extent pregnant. 00:12:53 Speaker 1: Well, I just I encourage you. You have such like a lot you have, just so we are clear that the babies can infect moms with terrible diseases, like babies are like disease mongerers 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 sixteen years old and they start driving, then they are a risks to all of humanity. But the point you don't think, you. 00:13:18 Speaker 2: Don't think there's a fundamental difference. No, then they're physically connected absolutely, well in your. 00:13:24 Speaker 1: 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 NICKU. It's a neonatal intensive care unit. They're twenty six, twenty seven, twenty eight 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 nick you is going to cost us three hundred 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 Europe? Bodily tell me? 00:14:00 Speaker 2: 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 NICKU machine doesn't exist? 00:14:09 Speaker 1: What what? What do you think if. 00:14:12 Speaker 2: Okay, if the NICKU machine didn't exist and you had to pull a random person off this again? 00:14:16 Speaker 1: Say that again? None of that is like even remotely relevant because you understand that 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 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 dioxyl ribal nucleic acid as a zygote, attaches to the uterine wall. That is when life begins. Like irrefutably, I'm not arguing no, never, I never wanted to 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 eighteen or thirty or forty, 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? 00:15:11 Speaker 2: 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 the you can't infringe upon someone's bodily autonomy in order to save someone else's life. 00:15:25 Speaker 1: Do you agree with that, like, well, hold on time out. Just so we are clear, we infringe on people's bodyly autonomy all the time. I want me to give you an example. We drafted men into World War two 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? 00:15:47 Speaker 2: It is, But the government has the right to do that for the to uphold the nation. Right, there's a difference. 00:15:52 Speaker 1: Saving babies upholds the nation, my friend, all the time, in. 00:15:55 Speaker 2: The same way, in the same way as fighting a war. 00:15:58 Speaker 1: 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 nick La Tesla, We might have the next Michael Jordan that is being aborted every day. 00:16:12 Speaker 2: The government, the government's I think the government's the government's right to be able to do that, I think needs to be. 00:16:19 Speaker 1: Justified by some reason. That no, no, it affects the government. 00:16:23 Speaker 2: It doesn't affect the government to terminate a baby in pregnancy, like. 00:16:27 Speaker 1: You don't think. I don't think a million abortions a year affects anybody. 00:16:32 Speaker 2: I'm not saying it affects nobody, but I'm saying in the same way you're saying it affects people in the same way that the government not being able to have an army does. Like I think there's a difference. 00:16:40 Speaker 1: I would actually think it's even even bigger moral crisis than not being able to enlist an army. If you are, 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. 00:16:53 Speaker 2: You're you're okay, so you think we're mastering the people, but we also are forcing women. 00:16:58 Speaker 1: No but to just to go back to your analogy, so we're clear, the government does infringe on bodily autonomy and times of national crisis. Yes, and therefore again, I even what is the national crisis that murder a million a year? That's a crisis. 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. We remember about the Holocaust was a holocaust of crisis, yes, it was. So how was abortion out of crisis? 00:17:35 Speaker 2: Because because is there smaller human beings, the unborn, the baby, the fetuses. 00:17:41 Speaker 1: You said baby, Therefore it's murder. 00:17:43 Speaker 2: It's a baby, it's a baby, whatever you want to call it. I still think. 00:17:46 Speaker 1: If okay, whatever you want to call it, Okay, I. 00:17:48 Speaker 2: 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, oh okay. 00:17:58 Speaker 1: And I might even grant you that. The point being is that throughout history we are able to sometimes say that in order for life, liber the pursuit of happiness, defeating the Nazis in World War two, 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, then why wouldn't you want to give that gift to millions of other people? 00:18:23 Speaker 2: Do you want to give the gift? What about there's mothers. There are mothers that die in medical situations all the time. 00:18:30 Speaker 1: That is a red herring. No one wants those mothers to die. But it is a fact that if we outlawed abortion ninety nine percent of them all of a sudden, we'd have a nine hundred and ninety thousand increase in our population every year, and we'd have a much more life and. 00:18:43 Speaker 2: Done those children would be raised in he see, that is. 00:18:45 Speaker 1: A cynical view. You know, there's over two 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 then actually abort. In this country, there's no such thing as an unwonted 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 that that is exactly the point you were making. 00:19:21 Speaker 2: I'm started with the bodily autonomy thing. 00:19:22 Speaker 1: No, no, But eventually, you know you interject, granted for a moment there you granted for a moment. The thing about 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 it. For your bodily autonomy? 00:19:37 Speaker 2: When did when did Ruvie Wade started like sixties, right from. 00:19:39 Speaker 1: The nineteen sixties, seventy. 00:19:41 Speaker 2: Seventy something, Okay, from that until now until Trump banned abortion? What national crisis has arisen? Has there been like a national crisis? Because yes, the babies have been. 00:19:51 Speaker 1: Aborted, like fifty five million souls that never had a chance to live. That's a beyond a national crisis. It didn't understate. 00:19:58 Speaker 2: We didn't lack scientist or politicians because of unborn babies. 00:20:02 Speaker 1: How do you know? I mean we like there was you know, all fifty five million identities and what they could have achieved and their dreams. Well, I mean at some point you have to take a step back and say, boy, when fifty five million people never had a chance at life, that's kind of dark. What does that say for a society that's fifty five million. 00:20:19 Speaker 2: I don't know if all of them wanted to have an abortion, but millions, millions of women didn't want to be pregnant and were forced to continue being pregnant against their will. 00:20:29 Speaker 1: Like that effect, 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. Do not murder babies as an excuse for your gratuitous sex. 00:20:44 Speaker 4: All right, I'm so excited. The weather is finally warming up, which means grilling season is basically here. 00:20:51 Speaker 1: Sorry. 00:20:51 Speaker 4: 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 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 one American meat straight to your door. It's pasted, you're 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 grilling, chicken for weeknight dinners. 00:21:26 Speaker 1: Or whatever you reach for the most. 00:21:29 Speaker 4: Start your plan today and you'll get free meat included with every order, and with our code Charlie, you'll get twenty five dollars off your first order. That's free meat with every order and twenty five dollars off your first order with code Charlie when you start your plan at good ranchers dot com, Good ranchers dot com American Meat Delivered. 00:21:51 Speaker 3: I'm currently agnostic, Like normatively, I'm leaning towards prone choice in the virtue of the facts that I take it that proli views ultimately fail in accounting for like relative relevant data being like the facts of the conversation, like biological, philosophical, and identity information. And I'm not convinced that identity is reductible down to the physical properties or the organism. I think we are our mind? 00:22:11 Speaker 1: Are we just a mind? 00:22:14 Speaker 3: What do you mean? 00:22:15 Speaker 1: You tell me you're making the contention I think. 00:22:18 Speaker 3: I think our identity is down to. 00:22:20 Speaker 1: Our mind, Yes, just consciousness or the mind. You had to explain what you mean. 00:22:23 Speaker 3: Yeah, the mind is just going to be like sentience. 00:22:26 Speaker 1: Okay, So what's your contention? Uh? 00:22:27 Speaker 3: I think, uh, they fail because, like, I don't think that the being like one is that 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. 00:22:48 Speaker 1: Okay, Yeah, I'm not totally following what you're saying because you're using the word mind, which is not usually a one. 00:22:52 Speaker 2: Yeah. 00:22:52 Speaker 3: I just said that that like mind is like sentience. 00:22:54 Speaker 1: Like having a human consciousness gradience yet, So so what what is your contention that you're not persuaded by? 00:23:00 Speaker 3: Yeah, I'm not persuaded the pro life views that you're reductible down to our organism. 00:23:05 Speaker 1: Okay, Yeah, So an eighty five year old and an old person's home that as Alzheimer's, are they less of a human than you? 00:23:10 Speaker 3: I didn't say that they were less of a human answer the question, because they have. Yeah, so people with Alzheimer's still have the capacity for subjective experience. I wouldn't say can't remember. 00:23:19 Speaker 1: They can't remember anything. 00:23:20 Speaker 3: Memory is and isn't sentience. 00:23:22 Speaker 1: Now, it's a part of sentience, isn't it. 00:23:24 Speaker 3: 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 the moral consideration. 00:23:37 Speaker 1: When does human development begin? 00:23:40 Speaker 3: What do you mean? Human life? 00:23:41 Speaker 1: Human development? 00:23:42 Speaker 3: It's going to be at conception. 00:23:43 Speaker 1: Yeah, that's human life. 00:23:45 Speaker 3: Yeah, human life begins at conception. I contending that, No, no. 00:23:48 Speaker 1: Got it. So then shouldn't our laws then protect the first possible moment of human development? 00:23:52 Speaker 3: Why should they? 00:23:53 Speaker 1: Well, because it's a human life, begging it the question, Well, no, it's actually not. 00:23:59 Speaker 3: No, you're just telling me what the human is. So you're not telling me like why they should deserve it? 00:24:02 Speaker 1: So, like why murder is bad? Like do we need to do that. 00:24:05 Speaker 3: You're gonna have to explain as to why, like abortion is going to be the unjustified on aliving. You're just 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 gonna need to tell me why it's unjustified. 00:24:16 Speaker 1: Well, I personally, I think murder is wrong is pretty intuitive, right, Yeah, it's intuitive. 00:24:20 Speaker 3: But you're gonna need to tell me why abortion fits within that unjust category. 00:24:23 Speaker 1: Okay, Because you're your own unique deoxyribonucleic acid at the time of conception, 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. 00:25:07 Speaker 3: Yeah, I didn't say any of that, but sure, so do you think that? 00:25:10 Speaker 1: Okay, well what I don't really know what you did say? 00:25:12 Speaker 3: Actually, that's okay, do you Yeah? 00:25:15 Speaker 1: So what what what did you say? 00:25:17 Speaker 3: 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. 00:25:26 Speaker 1: All r. 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. 00:25:36 Speaker 3: What do you mean by being? 00:25:39 Speaker 1: What do I mean by a human being? Yeah? A homo sapien. 00:25:43 Speaker 3: 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? 00:25:54 Speaker 1: A partial molar pregnancy? 00:25:56 Speaker 3: Yes? Not, okay. 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 mole or pregnancy. 00:26:12 Speaker 1: I don't know enough about that, Okay, So I can get back to you on that one. 00:26:17 Speaker 3: Okay, sure. Do you think what what do you like value? Do you value it being like a human being? 00:26:23 Speaker 1: Just human beings inherently are valuable? 00:26:26 Speaker 3: Yeah? Why are they inherently valuable? 00:26:27 Speaker 1: Well? You want my religious definition or do you want my biological one? 00:26:32 Speaker 3: Either one's fine, Okay. 00:26:33 Speaker 1: Well, I believe every human beings made in the image of God, and therefore it's uniquely designed and craft that 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. 00:26:52 Speaker 3: Okay, sure, yeah, So the idea I believe that that God grounds this intrinsic value in a fetus, I don't think satisfies that. 00:27:01 Speaker 1: Yeah. 00:27:01 Speaker 3: Yeah, I'm using them colloquially. I'm not using them to dehumanize. I'll use child, baby, whatever, because intrinsic value is I is also expected under like the atheistic like hypothesis. So I don't know what kind of argument you're making. Here because unfortunately, God itself is just not going to ground that a fetus is inherently valuable. 00:27:22 Speaker 1: Okay, you asked for my scriptural analysis, but okay, let's. 00:27:26 Speaker 3: Just look 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. 00:27:36 Speaker 1: 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 h after it's born? No? No, no, in utero, in utero. 00:27:50 Speaker 3: No, I don't find it to be morally considerable before sentience. 00:27:53 Speaker 1: Oh got it. So you can eliminate anything even though it's growing towards sentience. 00:27:57 Speaker 3: Yeah, sorry, are you making like a potential argument. 00:27:59 Speaker 1: 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 a it's 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 thirty years old. So what I'm saying is that a growth, the growth of the human being, continues all throughout this process. Allow 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. 00:28:44 Speaker 3: 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 unalized or killed. Sorry, but uh yeah, so I kind of forgot one point that you made. What was it? 00:29:07 Speaker 1: So just so we are clear, like humans are bodies and minds. Yes, so we are more than just. 00:29:13 Speaker 3: I remember the point that you made about the baby. Yeah, so we gain sentience in the womb. Are you aware of that? 00:29:20 Speaker 1: Yeah? Around eight week, nine to ten weeks, brain waves are detected for weeks. Brain waves, your rein waves. Yeah, okay, you gotta like your a little snarky, you gotta like calm down. Okay, okay. Yeah, so around around nine to ten weeks, brain waves are detected. A baby can respond to a mother's voice around twenty seven weeks. Around twenty weeks, we have some understanding that a baby's cognitive ability is being formed. These are approximations. 00:29:45 Speaker 3: Yeah, what is the argument that brain waves are sentienced? 00:29:50 Speaker 1: What is the We actually don't know, we're inferring it. 00:29:53 Speaker 3: Yeah, so sentience is going to be the subjective experience where you can have interest, desires, and motivations. 00:29:57 Speaker 1: And I find it that's interesting. How do you how do you know a newborn has interest, desires, and motivations. 00:30:02 Speaker 3: 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 twenty to twenty four weeks, or that I hold a twelve week cautionary stands because. 00:30:24 Speaker 1: Me, let's just do this, let's just sentence, let's do this all the way you want to go all the way on this, let's do it. What proof do you have that anyone is sentient? 00:30:32 Speaker 3: Yeah, so we have proof that they're sentient on the basis of their phallum a quarticle. It's actually a faith claim and their conjunctions with their cerebrum. 00:30:40 Speaker 1: It's a faith claim. 00:30:41 Speaker 3: Are you going to make an argument for that? 00:30:42 Speaker 1: Yes. Definitionally, you don't know that anybody else's sension. Accept yourself how because you cannot prove consciousness. We don't know where consciousness exists in the brain. In fact, we know we can't. We don't know where it is. You can't see somebody else. 00:30:53 Speaker 3: You can to expand on why we don't know. 00:30:55 Speaker 1: Yeah, again, I'm getting there. Like do they teach you to talk like this university? Like you're paying for this, Like like cheez again, I want to get to the other questions. But like, yes, this is called the consciousness 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 that we can infer it you cannot measure it and you cannot see it. 00:31:30 Speaker 3: Yeah, sure, I'm gonna 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. 00:31:58 Speaker 1: Right again, so all that you could detect the effects of consciousness, you cannot actually see consciousness itself. 00:32:05 Speaker 3: Does seeing consciousness matter? We see it in their like neurological structures. 00:32:11 Speaker 1: Again, you see the effects of it. We can keep on going in circles. Of course, I believe sentience exists. You cannot measure it, you cannot see it because you have there is no there is no objective proof that somebody else's sension. Accept 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 ten weeks or twelve 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. 00:33:00 Speaker 4: For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to Charlikirk dot com