Video: Student Calmly Takes Apart Two Abortion Supporters’ Entire Argument With One Simple Question
A short but powerful street debate is blowing up online, and it perfectly captures why the abortion debate is so lopsided when logic meets emotion.
A calm, backpack-wearing college student calmly dismantled the “my body, my choice” argument in front of two young female abortion supporters. The exchange happened during a street outreach by the pro-life group Abolitionists Rising.
One of the women declared, “I’m against you guys telling women what to do with their bodies.”
A young man asked, “We can’t have a moral opinion?”
“Not on my body,” she shot back.
That’s when the calm student stepped in with one simple question that exposed the entire inconsistency:
“Wait, I just have a question for you. So, the Holocaust. Was the Holocaust wrong?”
The second woman immediately got animated and defensive: “The Holocaust was f***ing wrong, yeah, okay.”
The student replied, “Yeah, exactly. You’re condemning Nazis for killing Jews when you’re not a Nazi or a Jew. It’s something that doesn’t involve you. How can you have a moral opinion on something that doesn’t involve you and then tell me — ?”
The first woman interrupted, now louder and more agitated: “How can you have a moral opinion on something that doesn’t involve you? You are a man. So just f***ing keep your d*** in your pants until you’re married.”
The student stayed completely composed and delivered the knockout line:
“You just proved my point.”
When she asked what his point was, he explained: “I’m saying that you can have a moral opinion on things that don’t directly involve you. You’re saying that the Holocaust is wrong; it’s because murder is wrong. Me saying that abortion is wrong is also saying that murder is wrong.”
**Watch the full exchange here (warning: contains vulgar language and profanity):**
This one-minute clip says everything about the modern abortion debate. On one side: emotional, profanity-laced appeals to “bodily autonomy” that collapse the moment you apply the same logic to any other moral issue. On the other side: a composed young man using simple, consistent reasoning that murder is wrong no matter who it involves.
The contrast is striking — and it’s becoming more common. While some young women on the left appear increasingly radicalized and hysterical, a growing number of Gen Z men are shifting right and calmly dismantling bad arguments with basic logic.
The student even sounded a bit like the late Charlie Kirk in both tone and substance. One simple question exposed the hypocrisy, and the abortion activists had no real answer.
This is why the left hates these street debates. When the arguments are forced into the open and held up to consistent moral standards, the “my body, my choice” slogan falls apart.
—
Mark Van der Veen offers some of the most analytical and insightful writings on politics. He regularly opines on the motives and political calculations of politicians and candidates, and whether or not their strategy will work. Van der Veen offers a contrast to many on this list by sticking mainly to a fact-based style of writing that is generally combative with opposing ideologies.
Abort abortionists. His finger on the trigger, his choice – so to speak, of course. As Larry Silverstein said regarding Tower 7 before it magically crumbled into its own footprint, “Pull it.”