Ben Shapiro Shows How You Win a Pro-Life Argument

What happened?

A “controversial” pro-life speaker and a college student last week debated some typical pro-abortion arguments. Glenn and Stu analyzed the clip on radio Monday.

Who was speaking?

Ben Shapiro, a conservative writer and commentator who is editor-in-chief of the Daily Wire, spoke at the University of California at Berkeley on Thursday. UC Berkeley prepared for his appearance by working with local law enforcement and spending a shocking $600,000 on security measures.

During a Q&A session, an unnamed student asked Shapiro why a human fetus in the first trimester has “moral value.” While Shapiro was protested by some students on campus, the Q&A exchange about abortion was respectful on both sides.

What was Shapiro’s response?

Shapiro used basic biology for the foundation of his answer. A fetus is human because science (and common sense) says so. If you think we shouldn’t kill humans, why doesn’t a fetus have value?

“A first-trimester fetus has moral value because whether you consider it a potential human life or a full-on human life, it has more value than just a cluster of cells,” Shapiro said. “If left to its natural processes, it will grow into a baby.”

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: So I want to talk about Ben Shapiro.

STU: Actually, you mentioned you saw Jennifer Garner in real life. And I'd rather hear about that. No offense, Ben. I'm sure -- you know, Ben is a good guy. We like Ben.

GLENN: There's a lot to be said about the Jennifer Garner thing. There's a lot. And I'm not going to share it with you.

STU: Okay.

GLENN: Ben Shapiro, he was out at Berkeley. And I want you to know that people -- people who listen will -- some, will say, oh, gee, you know -- you just kept cowering in a corner. No, uh-uh. Not cowering in a corner. Speak the truth. And speak it with wisdom and facts and without hyperbole. And without name-calling.

STU: Because I think a lot of people translate what you're saying a lot of times as cower in the corner and just, you know, go along to get along.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: That's not really what you're saying.

GLENN: No, no.

Your corner -- what corner? Do you belong in a corner? I don't belong in a corner. My corner is my country. I'm going to speak out and I'm going to come out for my country. I'm not going to cower in a corner.

STU: How about very divisive issues? Because sometimes --

GLENN: May I? I know you're very focused on Jennifer Garner.

STU: Can we talk about that? Because a lot of people are divided about her. And then listen about what Ben Shapiro is saying.

GLENN: This is Ben Shapiro at Berkeley. He is taking on a -- a person on the left about abortion, and listen to the way he handles this.

VOICE: So my question was about abortion, and I just wanted to know why exactly you think a first-trimester fetus has moral value.

BEN: Okay. So a first-trimester fetus has moral value because whether you consider it a potential human life or a full-on human life, it has more value than just a cluster of cells. If left to its natural processes, it will grow into a baby. So the real question is: Where do you draw the line? So are you going to draw the line at the heartbeat? Because it's very hard to draw the line at the heartbeat. There are people who are adults who are alive because of a pacemaker. And they need some sort of outside force, generating their heartbeat.

okay. Are you going to do it based on brain function? Okay. Well, what about people who are in a coma? Should we just kill them?

The problem is any time you draw any line other than the inception of the child, you end up drawing a false line that can also be applied to people who are adults.

So either human life has intrinsic value or it doesn't. I think we both agree that adult human life has intrinsic value. Can we start from that premise?

VOICE: I believe that sentients has -- is what gives something moral value, not necessarily -- not necessarily being a human alone.

BEN: Okay. So when you're asleep, can I stab you?

(laughter)

VOICE: I'm still considered sentient when I'm asleep.

BEN: Okay. If you are a coma from which you can awake, can I stab you?

VOICE: Well, then, no. I guess not.

BEN: I'm glad you answered that. Because I have no interest in actually murdering you.

VOICE: But that's still potential sentience, and it's still a potential --

BEN: I agree. It has potential sentience. You know what else has potential sentience? Being a fetus.

GLENN: Oh, man. See, there's nothing better.

STU: Yeah.

VOICE: If I'm in a coma and I'm not like doing anything to anyone, I'm not causing any issues amongst the world -- whereas, an unwanted child may or may not be a burden to people.

BEN: There are lots of people's parents who are unwanted. Right? Or a bunch of college students.

The problem is, that now -- so now you're shifting the argument. Right?

Before you were making the argument based on the intrinsic value of a life based on sentience, and now you're talking about the level of burden that somebody presents as a separate moral argument.

Okay. I don't believe that you being a burden on somebody is justification for them killing you, as a general rule.

VOICE: I'll leave it at that, but I appreciate you.

BEN: Thanks.

GLENN: I'll leave it at that. Yeah, you probably -- you probably should.

STU: You should probably leave the state after that.

(chuckling)

That's amazing. Because how you could -- first of all, you could go to their last argument there. A burden? You know, look a lot of people -- when you have someone who is hooked up to machines in a coma, what a -- it's an incredible burden on a family.

GLENN: And the state.

STU: But because you care about human life, you still try to fight through it. And the state, right. Cost. There's a million things you could argue on that. That is embarrassing.

And the reason -- you could fault the guy for making the point the way he did. The problem is, there's no value in the point. It's not that he made the point poorly, it's that the point is ridiculous.

GLENN: So, but here is the thing: Being able to have that dialogue -- and that's, quite honestly, why people want to shut other people up. And when you don't have the -- when you don't have the intellectual firepower of Ben Shapiro, then you get down to -- well, that's -- your side did it first.

And there's just no -- there's nothing to be gained there. Nothing to be gained.

STU: There is a moment where you go into like the gym at your local Y. And, you know, you're going into -- a bit of a pickup team. It's like, eh, I got one other guy I'm just going to bring in. And just, LeBron James walks in. That is the Ben Shapiro moment.

GLENN: Yeah.

He is probably our William F. Buckley. He and Jonah Goldberg are probably the William F. Buckley of our generation.

STU: It's one of those things, when you have one of those guys on your side, you're never losing an argument.

GLENN: Yeah.

The number of people serving life sentences now exceeds the entire prison population in 1970, according to newly-released data from the Sentencing Project. The continued growth of life sentences is largely the result of "tough on crime" policies pushed by legislators in the 1990s, including presidential candidate Joe Biden.

Biden has since apologized for backing those types of policies, but it seems he has yet to learn his lesson. Indeed, Biden is backing yet another criminal justice policy with disastrous consequences—mandatory drug treatment for all drug offenders.

Proponents of this policy argue that forced drug treatment will reduce drug usage and recidivism and save lives. But the evidence simply isn't on their side. Mandatory treatment isn't just patently unethical, it's also ineffective—and dangerous.

Many well-meaning people view mandatory treatment as a positive alternative to incarceration. But there's a reason that mandatory treatment is also known as "compulsory confinement." As author Maya Schenwar asks in The Guardian, "If shepherding live human bodies off to prison to isolate and manipulate them without their permission isn't ethical, why is shipping those bodies off to compulsory rehab an acceptable alternative?" Compulsory treatment isn't an alternative to incarceration. It is incarceration.

Compulsory treatment is also arguably a breach of international human rights agreements and ethical standards. The World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) have made it clear that the standards of ethical treatment also apply to the treatment of drug dependence—standards that include the right to autonomy and self-determination. Indeed, according to UNODC, "people who use or are dependent on drugs do not automatically lack the capacity to consent to treatment...consent of the patient should be obtained before any treatment intervention." Forced treatment violates a person's right to be free from non-consensual medical treatment.

It's a useless endeavor, anyway, because studies have shown that it doesn't improve outcomes in reducing drug use and criminal recidivism. A review of nine studies, published in the International Journal of Drug Policy, failed to find sufficient evidence that compulsory drug treatment approaches are effective. The results didn't suggest improved outcomes in reducing drug use among drug-dependent individuals enrolled in compulsory treatment. However, some studies did suggest potential harm.

According to one study, 33% of compulsorily-treated participants were reincarcerated, compared to a mere 5% of the non-treatment sample population. Moreover, rates of post-release illicit drug use were higher among those who received compulsory treatment. Even worse, a 2016 report from the Massachusetts Department of Public Health found that people who received involuntary treatment were more than twice as likely to die of an opioid-related overdose than those with a history of only voluntary treatment.

These findings echo studies published in medical journals like Addiction and BMJ. A study in Addiction found that involuntary drug treatment was a risk factor for a non-fatal drug overdose. Similarly, a study in BMJ found that patients who successfully completed inpatient detoxification were more likely than other patients to die within a year. The high rate of overdose deaths by people previously involuntarily treated is likely because most people who are taken involuntarily aren't ready to stop using drugs, authors of the Addiction study reported. That makes sense. People who aren't ready to get clean will likely use again when they are released. For them, the only post-treatment difference will be lower tolerance, thanks to forced detoxification and abstinence. Indeed, a loss of tolerance, combined with the lack of a desire to stop using drugs, likely puts compulsorily-treated patients at a higher risk of overdose.

The UNODC agrees. In their words, compulsory treatment is "expensive, not cost-effective, and neither benefits the individual nor the community." So, then, why would we even try?

Biden is right to look for ways to combat addiction and drug crime outside of the criminal justice system. But forced drug treatment for all drug offenders is a flawed, unethical policy, with deadly consequences. If the goal is to help people and reduce harm, then there are plenty of ways to get there. Mandatory treatment isn't one of them.

Lindsay Marie is a policy analyst for the Lone Star Policy Institute, an independent think tank that promotes freedom and prosperity for all Texans. You can follow her on Twitter @LindsayMarieLP.

President Donald Trump's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani joined Glenn Beck on Tuesday's radio program discuss the Senate's ongoing investigation into former vice president Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, and reveal new bombshell documents he's currently releasing.

Giuliani told Glenn he has evidence of "very, very serious crime at the highest levels of government," that the "corrupt media" is doing everything in their power to discredit.

He also dropped some major, previously unreported news: not only was Hunter Biden under investigation in 2016, when then-Vice President Biden "forced" the firing of Ukraine's prosecutor general Viktor Shokin, but so was the vice president himself.

"Shokin can prove he was investigating Biden and his son. And I now have the prosecutorial documents that show, all during that period of time, not only was Hunter Biden under investigation -- Joe Biden was under investigation," Giuliani explained. "It wasn't just Hunter."

Watch this clip to get a rundown of everything Giuliani has uncovered so far.

Use code GLENN to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

For most Americans, the 1980s was marked by big hair, epic lightsaber battles, and school-skipping Ferris Bueller dancing his way into the hearts of millions.

But for Bernie Sanders — who, by the way, was at that time the oldest-looking 40-year-old in human history — the 1980s was a period of important personal milestones.

Prior to his successful 1980 campaign to become mayor of Burlington, Vermont, Sanders was mostly known around the Green Mountain State as a crazy, wildly idealistic socialist. (Think Karl Marx meets Don Quixote.) But everything started to change for Sanders when he became famous—or, in the eyes of many, notorious—for being "America's socialist mayor."

As mayor, Sanders' radical ideas were finally given the attention he had always craved but couldn't manage to capture. This makes this period of his career particularly interesting to study. Unlike today, the Bernie Sanders of the 1980s wasn't concerned with winning over an entire nation — just the wave of far-left New York City exiles that flooded Vermont in the 1960s and 1970s — and he was much more willing to openly align himself with local and national socialist and communist parties.


www.youtube.com


Over the past few weeks, I have been reading news reports of Sanders recorded in the 1980s — because, you know, that's how guys like me spend their Saturday nights — and what I've found is pretty remarkable.

For starters, Sanders had (during the height of the Soviet Union) a very cozy relationship with people who openly advocated for Marxism and communism. He was an elector for the Socialist Workers Party and promoted the party's presidential candidates in 1980 and 1984.

To say the Socialist Workers Party was radical would be a tremendous understatement. It was widely known SWP was a communist organization mostly dedicated to the teachings of Marx and Leon Trotsky, one of the leaders of the Russian Revolution.

Among other radical things I've discovered in interviews Sanders conducted with the SWP's newspaper — appropriately named The Militant (seriously, you can't make this stuff up) — is a statement by Sanders published in June 1981 suggesting that some police departments "are dominated by fascists and Nazis," a comment that is just now being rediscovered for the first time in decades.

In 1980, Sanders lauded the Socialist Workers Party's "continued defense of the Cuban revolution." And later in the 1980s, Sanders reportedly endorsed a collection of speeches by the socialist Sandinistas in Nicaragua, even though there had been widespread media reports of the Sandinistas' many human rights violations prior to Sanders' endorsement, including "restrictions on free movement; torture; denial of due process; lack of freedom of thought, conscience and religion; denial of the right of association and of free labor unions."

Sanders also traveled to Nicaragua and met with socialist President Daniel Ortega. He later called the trip a "profoundly emotional experience."

Sanders also traveled to Nicaragua and met with socialist President Daniel Ortega. He later called the trip a "profoundly emotional experience."

Comrade Bernie's disturbing Marxist past, which is far more extensive than what can be covered in this short article, shouldn't be treated as a mere historical footnote. It clearly illustrates that Sanders' brand of "democratic socialism" is much more than a $15 minimum wage and calls for single-payer health care. It's full of Marxist philosophy, radical revolutionary thinking, anti-police rhetoric, and even support for authoritarian governments.

Millions of Americans have been tricked into thinking Sanders isn't the radical communist the historical record — and even Sanders' own words — clearly show that he is. But the deeper I have dug into Comrade Bernie's past, the more evident it has become that his thinking is much darker and more dangerous and twisted than many of his followers ever imagined.

Tomorrow night, don't miss Glenn Beck's special exposing the radicals who are running Bernie Sanders' campaign. From top to bottom, his campaign is staffed with hard-left extremists who are eager to burn down the system. The threat to our constitution is very real from Bernie's team, and it's unlike anything we've ever seen before in a U.S. election. Join Glenn on Wednesday, at 9 PM Eastern on BlazeTV's YouTube page, and on BlazeTV.com. And just in case you miss it live, the only way to catch all of Glenn's specials on-demand is by subscribing to Blaze TV.

Justin Haskins (Jhaskins@heartland.org) is editorial director of The Heartland Institute and editor-in-chief of StoppingSocialism.com.

Candace Owens, BLEXIT founder and author of the upcoming book, "Blackout," joined Glenn Beck on Friday's GlennTV for an exclusive interview. available only to BlazeTV subscribers.

Candace dropped a few truth-bombs about the progressive movement and what's happening to the Democratic Party. She said people are practically running away from the left due to their incessant push to dig up dirt on anybody who disagrees with their radical ideology. She explained how -- like China and its "social credit score" -- the left is shaping America into its own nightmarish episode of "Black Mirror."

"This game of making sure that everyone is politically correct is a societal atom bomb. There are no survivors. There's no one that is perfect," Candace said. "The idea that humanity can be perfect is Godless. If you accept that there is something greater than us, then you accept that we a flawed. To be human is to be flawed."

Enjoy this clip from the full episode below:

youtu.be


BlazeTV subscribers can watch the full interview on BlazeTV.com. Use code GLENN to save $10 off one year of your subscription.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.