The speaker argues that a child conceived in rape deserves moral protection because all human beings, regardless of their origin, are equal and should not be murdered. The speaker emphasizes that the circumstances of conception do not justify the termination of a human life.
The speaker believes that abortion is never medically necessary to save a mother's life because there are other medical procedures, such as cesarean sections, that can save the mother's life without terminating the pregnancy.
The speaker argues that a one-year-old child should receive moral protection because it can perform actions, such as crying, which the speaker considers a sign of moral worth. However, the speaker does not extend this reasoning to a fetus, which they believe does not have the same level of moral worth until it exits the womb.
The speaker believes that life should be protected even in an abusive home because they argue that the choice to end a life should not be based on the potential for a difficult or abusive environment. They contend that life itself is inherently valuable and worth protecting.
The speaker argues that moral reasoning cannot be neutral in society because there must be an objective moral philosophy to govern actions such as murder and theft. They believe that allowing everyone to decide their own morality leads to a lack of consistency and can result in harmful practices.
Charlie had a remarkable conversation with a pro-abortion atheist at Arizona State University shortly before the election. Charlie and George Janko asked some compelling questions: Is he happy? Is he at peace? Is he grateful his mother didn't abort him? His answers have to be heard, along with other exciting questions from the students of ASU.
Support the show: http://www.charliekirk.com/support)
See omnystudio.com/listener) for privacy information.