Ben Shapiro Shows How You Win a Pro-Life Argument

September 18, 2017

WRITER

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.

VP debate recap: A Vance victory

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

This might have been the most consequential VP debate in recent memory.

For those of you who missed the debate, it was a decisive victory for J.D. Vance and the Trump-Vance team as a whole. Vance presented a calm, collected, and considerate side of the Republican party that compliments Trump and helps to make their platform more palatable. Meanwhile, Tim Walz had a lackluster, though certainly not catastrophic, night. He had a few embarrassing gaffes and came across as overly nervous, but like Vance, kept it civil.

Both VP candidates entered the stage as relative unknowns to most Americans, and by the end, both men had given an accurate representation of their characters. Here is a brief recap just in case you missed the debate:

J.D. Vance looked great

ANGELA WEISS / Contributor | Getty Images

Vance came out of the gate swinging, with a stellar opening statement that helped set the stage for the rest of the debate. He delivered a concise yet compelling recap of his life, which framed him as everything Walz claims to be: a relatable veteran from humble beginnings who earned his position through hard work and service. He then went on to deliver a clear and palatable defense of Trump's platform and mission while cooly drawing attention to the failures of the Biden-Harris administration.

Overall, J.D. Vance looked incredibly presidential. He presented himself not just as a capable vice president, but as a strong successor to Trump and as a valid replacement if anything should happen to the former president between now and the end of his hypothetical second term. Vance also successfully dispelled the notion that he is "weird" as Walz called him, and if anyone looked strange during the debate, it certainly wasnot Vance.

Tim Walz's gaffes

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

While Tim Walz certainly didn't have an awful night, he did not stack up well against Vance. Walz had a major gaffe around halfway through the debate when asked to explain the change in his position on assault weapon bans. Walz then claimed that he had befriended school shooters during his time in office. While that was clearly not the intention of what he was saying, it was embarrassing nonetheless.

Another weak moment was when the moderators asked Walz to explain a claim he had made regarding being in Hong Kong during the infamous Tiananmen Square protest in 1989, which has since been proven false. Walz gave a long-winded, rambling answer about taking students to visit China and how Trump should have joined in on those trips, before being called out by the moderator for dodging the question.

Vance fact-checked the fact-checkers

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

One of the conditions of the CBS debate was that the moderators would not fact-check the debaters live, but instead rely on after-the-matter fact-checking. But, CBS couldn't keep to its own rules. While Vance was describing the migrant crisis that has swelled during the Biden-Harris administration, one of the CBS moderators, Margaret Brennan, chimed in with a "fact check." She claimed that the Haitian migrants in Ohio have legal status, to which Vance clapped back by calling Brennan out for breaking the rules of the debate, then proceeded to correct her, explaining that they only had legal status due to overreach by the Biden-Harris administration.

Dockworker strike: Everything you need to know

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

At midnight on September 30th, dockworkers across the East Coast went on strike, effectively cutting the country's import and export capabilities in half.

Don't go out and panic buy a pallet of toilet paper and instant ramen just yet. It's going to take some time for the full effects of the strike to be felt and hopefully, the strike will be good and over by then. But there are no guarantees, and this election cycle could get significantly more insane as we draw near to the election. And even if the strike is settled quickly, it shows growing cracks in our infrastructure and industrial capacity that needs to be addressed if America wants to maintain its global dominance.

Here is everything you need to know about the dockworker strike:

What do the dockworkers want?

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

As with most strikes, pay is the driving factor behind this situation the country now finds itself in. The longshoremen want more pay, and with rising inflation who can blame them? After all, working the docks is hard and dangerous business, and fair compensation only seems... fair. But when you compare the wage of a dockworker, which is around $100,000 to $200,00 a year to the average income in America of $56,000, suddenly they seem significantly less sympathetic.

How much money are they asking for? For most Americans, a three percent raise is considered high, but the unions are asking up to 15 percent, depending on location. On top of that, they are asking for a 77 percent raise over the next six years. The West Coast dock workers recently made off with a 36 percent raise and were considered lucky. These increases in costs are just going to be transferred to the end consumer, and we'll likely see a jump in prices if these terms are accepted.

The other major ticket item is protection against automation. Autonomous ports are quickly becoming a reality, with major ports in China that are capable of handling vast amounts of cargo being run by a single office, not an army of dock workers. Naturally, the longshoremen are concerned that their jobs are at risk of being replaced by machines that can work harder, longer, for cheaper, and without risk of injury.

How will it affect Americans?

Joe Raedle / Staff | Getty Images

Don't panic yet!

It is going to take some time for consumers to feel the effects of the strike and it is possible that a resolution could happen at any time.

Week one should be pretty much business as usual. It might be a good idea to stock up on fruit and other perishables, but there is no need to go COVID-lockdown-crazy yet.

Week two is when you'll first start feeling the pinch. Fresh fruits and veggies will become scarce, along with other imported goods like shoes, toys, and TVs. Prices will start to creep up as the shelves will start to look a little sparse. The supply of tools, lumber, and other hardware materials will also begin to dry up.

By week three, the cracks in the system will really start to show. Entire industries will begin to slow down, or even stop. Factory workers will get furloughed and sent home without pay. Stores will have to ration items, prices will be sky-high, and online orders will come to a standstill. At this point, the strike will have escalated into a full-blown crisis, and even if it was resolved immediately, it would still take weeks to restore everything to working order.

At the four-week mark, the situation will have developed into a national security crisis, and as Glenn describes, a poly-crisis. Small business will be closing their doors, entire brands will be out of stock, and everything that remains will be so expensive it is unaffordable. By this point, the holiday season will be drawing near and there will be a rush on any sort of gift or decor items left. At this point, irreparable damage to our economy will have occurred and it will be months if not years before it can be mended.

While that sounds bleak, with the election just around the corner, it seems unlikely that the Biden-Harris administration will let it get that bad. That being said, their administration has not been characterized by good decision-making and reasonable policy, so there are no guarantees.

What can be done?

The Washington Post / Contributor | Getty Images

The big question is "Why hasn't Biden already done something?"

President Biden, who ran on the image of a blue-collar, union-worker, has been uncharacteristically absent from the issue. Despite his earlier involvement in a train strike, Biden has declared that involvement in union fights is not a presidential issue unless it getsreally bad.

So where's the line? At what point will he step in? He has to understand that an economic crisis right before the election will reflect poorly on Kamala.

Join Glenn TONIGHT for BlazeTV's exclusive VP debate coverage!

Anna Moneymaker / Staff, Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Join Glenntonight for Vice Presidential debate coverage you do not want to miss!

Tonight is the first (and only) Vice Presidential debate, and it will be hosted by CBS News. But don't be reliant on CBS News or any other mainstream media channel for their biased coverage. Join the BlazeTV live stream tonight to get the uncensored truth alongside top-quality commentary from Glenn and the rest of the world-class panel.

Glenn is joined by Megyn Kelly, Liz Wheeler, Allie Beth Stuckey, Steve Deace, Jill Savage, Dave Landau, and more to cover the CBS News Vice Presidential Debate. Blaze Media subscribers gain access to live chat with the fantastic panel of hosts! If you subscribe today by visiting BlazeTV.com/debate you will get $40 off of your annual subscription with code DEBATE. This is the largest discount ever offered, so take advantage NOW!

See you TONIGHT at 8 PM ET for an event you do NOT want to miss it!

POLL: Can the VP debate affect the election?

DOMINIC GWINN / Contributor, Dia Dipasupil / Staff | Getty Images

The first (and likely only) Vice President debate will be held on CBS News on Tuesday, October 1st.

The debate takes place at 9 p.m. Eastern Time and will be the first time we see J.D. Vance and Tim Walz face off in person. Typically, the VP debate is little more than a formality, and rarely does it affect the election in any significant way. But this is no ordinary election. The stakes are higher than they have been in years, and Trump and Harris are still in a razor-thin race, according to the polls. Both Vance and Walz are relative newcomers to the national stage and still have room to make an impression on the American people, and with the race as tight as it is, that might make all the difference.

So what do you think? Can this VP debate make an impact on the election? Are you going to tune in? And what sort of questions and issues need to be brought up? Let us know in the poll below:

Glenn's Show Prep

Ben Shapiro Shows How You Win a Pro-Life Argument

VP debate recap: A Vance victory

J.D. Vance looked great

Tim Walz's gaffes

Vance fact-checked the fact-checkers

Dockworker strike: Everything you need to know

What do the dockworkers want?

How will it affect Americans?

What can be done?

Join Glenn TONIGHT for BlazeTV's exclusive VP debate coverage!

POLL: Can the VP debate affect the election?

Will this VP debate be important in the overall election?

Are you going to watch the VP debate?

Should the debaters be asked about the Biden-Harris administration's failing economy?

Should the debaters be asked about climate change and energy policy?

Should the debaters be asked about the rise of globalism?