Charlie Kirk does a lot of good in the world. He’s very intelligent and a great debater, but this doesn’t mean he’s always right. It simply means he’s good at making people THINK he’s right. He’s usually right, but not always.
Please watch this video:
In Kirk’s mind, there are only two possibilities: A mass of cells is a human, or it’s NOT a human. There is no grey area, no intermediate state:
Regardless of which traits we use to determine who is “human,” reality is more like this:
Where we draw the line will always be arbitrary. At some point, at either extreme, there is usually consensus. In some cultures, even newborn infants weren’t considered fully human; their mortality was high and they’re fully dependent on adults for their survival. I’m not advocating for cultural relativism; I’m simply stating a fact. We have different levels of humanity, and we consider someone “human” or not depending on the circumstances. We consider someone worthy of life, or not, depending on the circumstances.
In the Book of Exodus 21:22-23:13, we read:
22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her children depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
There is disagreement as to whether the words “Her children depart from her” refers to a miscarriage or premature birth. However, Rashi (the most famous Jewish Bible commentator) explains that it refers to a miscarriage. Hence, we see that there is a mainstream Jewish opinion that considers the life of an unborn child to be less valuable than the life of the mother.
Based on his binary thinking, Charlie Kirk goes on to imply that a woman should be forced to carry the child of her rapist. I find this repulsive. The life of an unborn child has value. It has a lot of value – but so does the autonomy of the woman. If she was impregnated against her will, then she has every right to abort the baby.
1. I hate Charlie Kirk and cuckservatives intensely, that being said, Kirk is right that less than one percent of all abortions are the result of rape. It makes zero sense to decide to legalize all abortions because of cases that amount to less than 1 percent of all abortions. Don’t you agree? Do we decide any law based on circumstances that arise less than 1 percent of the time? This is a straw man if there ever was one. Pro Abortionists make this argument because they are taking the most extreme example they can find to argue their view, not the one that is the reality over 99% of the time – period.
2. Almost all people who identify as Pro-Life support allowing abortion in various cases including cases of rape, every poll I have ever seen proves this and every meeting I ever went to. I defy anyone to find any poll that doesn’t. The left wing media wants you to think that most Pro-Lifers oppose abortion in cases of rape etc., that isn’t true or even close to being true. It isn’t just not true, it is an Anti-Truth, the opposite of the truth. The media have an ideological interest in fostering this Anti-Truth which is why they do it. They hate Pro-Lifers with a murderous all consuming hatred. They aren’t nice or good people, they are very bad and dishonest people.
3. The correct position in all things should be based solely on what is good for the white race. It is our race that has given the world its greatest art, science, literature and ethics. The individual doesn’t matter in comparison to the race, the race matters most. Logic dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one.
Christianity is irrational and alien, so it has no impact on my view. Respecting white life including white babies is good for the white race. (I would favor allowing painless euthanasia for whites who no longer or have never enjoyed good quality of life owing to some health conditions. ) I can’t think of a worse crime than a woman murdering her defenseless unborn child, a child she chose to create by agreeing to have sex in over 99% of cases. I find that the most offensive thing imaginable, if we are going to use emotional appeals. A woman who does that makes herself into the lowest most vile thing on earth in my estimation. She is the epitome of evil, cruelty and narcissism!
To posit that a human life magically appears right after birth but is not present immediately before birth is anti-science and stupid. This is literally the position of most who say they are ‘Pro-Choice.” They have made themselves into cartoonish clowns! They treat the truth and facts with contempt. To them, the truth is something they can rape and contort into any position they wish to try to use it to further their own evil ends! All they do is lie. When they present something that amounts to less than 1 percent of all cases as something that happens all the time, that makes them monstrous liars. They are liars on a caliber the world has never before seen! They are the world heavy weight champions of the liar community!
If a black or Mestizo rapes a white, then that life isn’t white. It is a life of course, but not one I hold sacred or that any good people should. That “baby” would be half alien, in that case abortion becomes right even a moral duty. These are not just hostile non-white groups, they are low IQ and high crime ones. If a Black or Mestizo wants to abort their baby it should be allowed and even encouraged. I think any thoughtful person familiar with the facts should agree with this judgement. I will not belabor the point.
The original view by non-Talmudic Jews and based on the text exclusively is that if two men fight and injure a pregnant woman and there is a death (The text implies to her or to the baby) you are to give life for life. https://biblehub.com/interlinear/exodus/21-23.htm When it says “If any harm follows.” It means to mother or child. That said, I don’t accept the Torah or Bible as divine revelation in any form so even if it did say that abortion was allowed in some cases or all cases it wouldn’t effect my view.
Unlike most who oppose abortion, I don’t accept the existence of “Human rights.” On what is a human right based? Where do these rights come from? You can try to use human rights to argue abortion is the violation of the rights of the baby, or you can argue the mother should have a “right,” to abort. The mother’s “rights’ argument is terrible though. As the late conservative intellectual Wally George said “The choice was made when she chose to spread her legs.” Over 99% of women are aware that having heterosexual vaginal intercourse can result in conception and eventual child birth. I have no sympathy for the abortionist baby murdering position whatsoever. It is to me the ugliest thing imaginable.