In a Heartbeat (2000)TV series

To listen to this episode, subscribe to The Ben Shapiro Show on iTunes: https://apple.co/2SnMeqBtoday on the ben shapiro show we broadcast live from the march for life and debunk the most common pro-choice arguments one by one i'm ben shapiro this is the ben shapiro show [Music] alrighty so today on the benchmark show we are live from the march for life you can hear the thousands of amazing people who have come out hours earlier standing out here in the freezing cold weather i'm told this is temperate balmy weather for washington dc this time of year but i'm from california so i don't know what these people are talking about it is amazing to be here it's really an honor to be here we're going to do something we've never done before on the bench shapiro show we're doing a full-on themed hour of the ben shapiro show we're doing nothing but debunking pro-choice arguments all hour long and also we have a special guest who's going to be calling in a little bit later to say hello to everyone who is here so let's just jump right in because there are a lot of pro-choice arguments to debunk so let's begin with this we now live in a country that is still debating over whether abortion is a moral good or a moral evil president obama back on the 41st anniversary of the debacle the evil decision known as roe vs wade he said quote tonight as we reflect on the 41st anniversary of the supreme court decision in roe v white we recommit ourselves to the decisions guiding principle that every woman should be able to make her own choices about her body and her health this is a country where everyone deserves the same freedom and opportunities to fulfill their dreams my roe versus wade is a grand and glorious thing because now women have the ability to fulfill their dreams by killing babies which is an odd position i mean the position that you actually are only able to engage fully in freedom if you have the ability to snuff out an unborn life is a weird position but this was not unusual for president obama you recall that a few years back president obama spoke before the nasty terrible organization known as planned parenthood at the very end of his speech as you recall president obama actually said that god should bless planned parenthood here's what that sounded like as long as we've got a fight to make sure women have access to quality affordable health care and as long as we've got to fight to protect a woman's right to make her own choices about her own health i want you to know that you've also got a president who's going to be right there with you fighting every step of the way thank you planned parenthood god bless you you know we've gotten a lot of flack i know the march for life has gotten a lot of flack for allowing me to broadcast from the stage because i'm a political partisan because i don't hide the fact that i'm conservative but the fact is that the pro-life issue does not have to be a partisan issue the only reason that there are so many folks who believe that it has to be a partisan issue is because unfortunately one party in this country has decided to embrace the full on abortion until point of birth position all right so [Applause] now back to the issue at hand there's a piece in the washington post suggesting that it was very bad that i was going to be here today because it makes the issue partisan it is not my fault or your fault for the fault of the unborn that president obama chose to take the position that he chose that is his fault okay and it's not anybody else's fault when people in one party decide overwhelmingly to excise pro-life voices from their midst i know that there is a couple of democrats at least one democrat is going to be speaking at the march today which is fantastic i wish all democrats were here at the march today but there has been a shift inside the far left and increasingly the main left mainstream left version of what abortion should be about so if you go all the way back to the early 90s the position of the democratic party which is still quote-unquote pro-choice which is of course a euphemism the the original position was safe legal and rare right you recall hillary clinton said this back when she was first lady of the united states the way she articulated abortion was safe legal and rare here's what that sounded like we can support a woman's right to choose that makes abortion safe legal and rare and reduces the number of abortions okay well that happens to not be the position of the democratic party today first of all that was never logically tenable right if you want something to be safe and legal then your suggestion is that there really isn't anything morally wrong with the act that's that's taking place if abortion is not morally wrong then why should it be rare so if you want it to be safe and legal then why exactly should it be rare obviously once you say it should be rare you're acknowledging that there is a moral wrong that is being done at some level and therefore the case for being legal is actually a lot weaker particularly when what you're talking about is not some sort of consensual behavior you're talking about the taking of an unborn life but the new position of the democratic party increasingly and at least a lot of folks on the mainstream left is not even safe legal in a rare they've moved beyond that now we are in the shout your abortion era you have folks like lena dunham who i'll just leave it there she says she says literally she said this in the last couple of years she said that she wish she'd had an abortion this is what it sounded like now i can say that i still haven't had an abortion but i wish i had i mean that's an amazing statement it has become a right of passage for people a way of showing of signaling to people that you are a good women's rights advocate to suggest that you wish you had an abortion i mean imagine the moral evil that it takes to be able to say that you wished that you had had conceived a child just to kill that baby in your womb so that then you could brag to all of your friends about what a good feminist you were it's an amazing incredible disgusting thing okay so this position has changed radically now i don't want to take on the kind of straw man position that democrats are are all the most radical people on earth i want to take on the most mainstream arguments that are made against the pro-life position and we're going to go through these one by one they're basically 10 of these pro-choice arguments and all of them are meritless all of them are maryland so we're going to go through them and then i hope by the end of the show that folks are going to be equipped to speak more honestly and truthfully about how this how these issues work so argument number one is that this isn't a human being it's not a human life this is the argument that was put out by the editor of some publication called romper which i'd never heard of but earlier this week this this tweet was put up in which when you showed the tweet in which this romper editor suggested dear scotus supreme court fetal tissue is not a person fetal tissue is not a person fetal tissue's not a person fetal tissue is not a person fetal tissue is not a person but i am and i matter more than fetal tissue sign people who have miscarriages and abortions so there are many many logical problems with this position number one to lump in people who have miscarriages with people who have abortions is in and of itself disgusting there are many many women who want their babies who had miscarriages the idea that they didn't consider their own children children because they had a miscarriage because it was just fetal tissue is just absolute garbage it is absolute nonsense this also happens to be a scientific now if she had said that fetal stem cells are not the same as adult stem cells of course that's true that's not what she's saying she's saying fetal tissue meaning the tissue of a fetus is not a person okay well by that standard human flesh is not a person it's true a person being a person requires more than you just being a bag of flesh right you have to be alive right you have to be living but there is no distinction whatsoever between the flesh of a baby one minute before it enters the vaginal canal and one minute after it exits the vaginal canal the vaginal canal does not magically confer personhood it's just sheer nonsense and it's even more nonsensical when folks suggest that basically it's just a cluster of meaningless cells from the very beginning now today's theme of the march for life is that it is a march for science right is that science is what matters [Music] and this is why it's amazing you see the media will cover this march there's a bunch of religious bigots out there trying to end women's rights that's how the if they cover it at all right there are there'll be hundreds of thousands of people who show up today and they'll be like 9 000 people who show up tomorrow at the women's march and they'll cover the women's march endlessly and they'll probably ignore for the most part the march for life but if they do cover it they will fail to acknowledge that the actual rationale for the pro-life position is not religious in nature we'll talk about religion but it's not but it's not really religious in nature the actual pro-life position is based on the sheer unadulterated science of human life so let's go through that science for a second so let's begin with week one right week one of of pregnancy this or at least this is at conception right we have some graphics that we can put up here if you take a look at what uh what fertilization looks like at the start of the week ovulation happens the egg is fertilized and at that point human life begins there's no question that a human life has now begun if you were to find this on another planet it would be considered a life right you would say life found on mars if you found this organism on another planet it would be a life this is a human life now the question is whether it is a baby is an irrelevant one because the bottom line is that this will become a full grown human being if left unimpeded in the natural course of things this has an independent dna okay this is going to have an independent human existence so you don't have to say that this is a baby it's not a baby obviously it doesn't have to be a baby it doesn't look like a baby but it is a human life and that's what matters okay and then very quickly there's implantation that takes place and then by four weeks by the time most women recognize that they are even pregnant the ball of cells that is supposedly not human life is now an embryo okay this is by this point it's now an embryo and by five weeks the baby is already beginning its own to form its own circulatory system the tiny heart already begins to weak begins to beat at about week five by week six and we are now talking one month of a woman knowing she's pregnant by week six the nose mouth and ears are starting to take shape the intestines and brains are beginning to develop hey by week seven the baby has doubled in size since the last week little hands and feet are beginning to emerge by eight weeks breathing tubes are extending from the throat to the developing lungs nerve cells are branching out forming those primitive neural pathways and this is when people start to make the arguments about whether babies can feel pain or not at nine weeks the baby's basic physiology is in place if the baby continues to gain weight by week 10 the skin is translucent but tiny limbs can bend details like fingernails are beginning to form we can tell the sex of the baby at this point this is when most women go into the doctor and the doctor does the ultrasound and then you can tell whether the baby is a boy or a girl okay all of this is happening within the first two and a half months of pregnancy all of this is happening within the first trimester and yet the democratic party platform position is that this is not a full grown this is not it doesn't matter at all right there's no moral component of aborting anything anywhere in here and all the way up to birth all the way up to birth there is no moral component that's an incredible science-free argument and yet that is the argument that's made we are called the science deniers if we dare to mention things like biology basic fetal biology you know you know who actually acknowledged that taking a human abortion was taking human life is actually the founder of planned parenthood margaret sanger said abortion was the wrong way no matter how early it was performed it was taking life it was only later that planned parenthood became not a contraceptive center but an abortion center alrighty so the second argument the second argument uh with regard to the pro-choice position is that this baby can't survive on its own right we should be able to abort it because after all it's hooked up to another human and because it's hooked up to another human viability is the real test peter singer who's an ethicist an ethicist at princeton university which tells you everything you really need to know about princeton university he acknowledges that this makes no sense really he acknowledges that it makes no sense because most babies are not viable in the sense that they can survive on their own for several years after they are born i have a two and a half year old son right now he cannot survive on his own legitimately like if i were if both my wife and i were to abandon him in the house he would stick a fork into an electric socket within minutes right this is this is what small children do and this is particularly true of infants right if you have an infant the infant requires constant care the infant constantly requires that you are feeding it and taking care of it and changing it the viability argument makes no sense it doesn't even make sense when you're talking about many older americans who require constant care in places like assisted living facilities so the viability argument that if you are dependent on another human being to help you live you are therefore not a human life obviously doesn't hold which is why peter singer he actually acknowledges this he says opponents will respond that abortion is by its very nature unsafe for the fetus they point out that abortion kills a unique living human individual that claim is difficult to deny because again this is a separate human being so what he says what he says is that killing a newborn is not equivalent to killing a person because that because what you really need the standard should be self-consciousness or autonomy or rationality but none of those hold up to scrutiny none of those hold up to scrutiny now the reason none of those hold up to scrutiny is a standard for viability autonomy self-consciousness rationality is that again babies do not have any of these things okay so if that's the case then you should be able to commit infanticide and in fact that's actually what peter singer says he says you should be able to commit advance aside on kids after they're born at least if the pro-choice position were to be consistent they would have to acknowledge how evil that position is full scale okay argument number three is that it's responsible to abort okay this is the argument that women are making a responsible decision when they take the life of an unborn child because the child will probably be miserable anyway the kid will probably be upset day-to-day might be depressed might be obese for example i don't know if you've seen this video there's this woman who's been trying to go around training small children to be pro-choice she's she's this woman who works for shout your abortion and she explains to a kid that she had an abortion because she just wasn't ready for a child as though this is some sort of moral stamp of approval here's what she had to say why did you have an abortion a few years ago i got pregnant and i really didn't want to have a baby may i ask what happened did he not wear a condom did the condom break was it pre ejaculation such good questions um yeah he wasn't wearing a condom why wasn't he wearing a condom have you ever had two options and one of them like seems easier at the time oh yeah yeah you could take a shortcut or you could go the other way version oh so it's inconvenient and then it was inconvenient to raise the child see it turns out that it's actually very difficult to raise a child it's time consuming it's difficult because it's also the most important thing you do in life and i know that it has become unpopular to suggest that the most important thing that you are going to do in your life is raise your own children that you're going to bring a child into the world and then raise that child to be a good human being but that happens to be the truth there is nothing moral about the idea that you think you're going to be a bad parents you get to kill the child it's an insane argument right and by the way again an argument that holds true after birth what happens if you discover by age four that you're actually a terrible parent do you now get to go and drown your kid in a river somewhere that's not the way this works your failures as a parent do not allow you to kill another human being okay argument number four is that it makes life better for women abortion makes life better for women and this is the argument that you heard barack obama express a little bit earlier this argument that women's freedom is necessitates the killing of the unborn there's an article over at the guardian by a woman named hadley freeman came out last june in which she talked specifically about how the title of the piece is an abortion at the age of 23 gave me freedom and she talks about how when she was 23 her life forked just until then it had felt like one of those la freeways with half a dozen lanes i had options in terms of with pat which path i took but they were all going in the same general direction i was barely making a living and a job i enjoyed living in a dump with friends don't life was wide open then one day i took a pregnancy test and she says that she had an abortion she says i absolutely could have had that baby i would have had to give up my job and move back in with my parents my relationship would eventually ended and it would have taken years for me to be able to support myself and my baby but sure i could have done it but she's happy she didn't because now she gets to work the job that she wants and she doesn't have to live with her parents yeah you know who didn't get to live someone else and there's a dismissive view of the amazing gift of child bearing and child brewing to begin with i mean the idea that human freedom that female freedom is based not in raising the child but going working 2200 hours at a at a law firm is just it's ridiculous and i speak as a person whose mother was a working woman my wife as everyone knows is a doctor right we are i'm very much in favor of women in the workplace but if you give my wife the choice between what's more important to her raising our two kids or working as a doctor which is a pretty important job she would make that choice in a heartbeat that's not that's not a difficult decision what we have done as a society by devaluing mothering in favor of work is we have suggested that freedom itself is tied into work and not into mothering and that is just not true it is just a lie and if your freedom comes at the expense of the life of another human being then it's not really your freedom that is the top priority okay argument number five is the argument that because rape and incest are really bad therefore abortion is okay not only in those cases but in all cases now this is a real red herring that you see thrown out by the pro-choice movement on a fairly routine basis you're gonna be arguing abortion you're gonna be arguing the pro-life position they say well what about rape and incest where we have lots of sympathy for the woman because she's just undergone something absolutely horrific first of all the first thing that you should say in response to this argument is okay we can discuss those issues and i'm happy to talk about those which i will in one second but first are you willing to acknowledge that all the other abortions are wrong because they're not right this is what they're what they're doing is they're using an exception in order to destroy the rule they're basically saying that because we have moral qualms some people about rape and incest therefore a voluntary abortion for no reason having to do with rape and incest is totally okay all the folks who consistently mention rape and incest this is not the good faith argument that happens between people who are pro-life on these issues most of the people who mention rape and incest are instead much more interested in abortion across the board the truth is that only a tiny percentage of abortions spring from rape and incest as early as 1987 the alan guttmacher institute asked women about their reasons for abortion only one percent of the 1900 women surveyed suggested rape or abortion 95 of those who mentioned rape or incest actually named other reasons as well for deciding to abort it wasn't just rape or incest it was other reasons economic reasons so it wasn't just pure rapist in other words it is a minute fraction of abortions that we are talking about and when people cite those abortions as an excuse for all the other abortions that is intellectually dishonest in a massive way politifact right which is a left-wing source said that there may have been about 7 000 pregnancies from rape in 2010 in the united states total total out of the hundreds of thousands and millions of pregnancies that take place in the united states every year and this is supposed to be the rationale for ensuring that people can have abortions on demand each year there are about a million abortions in the united states okay a million and they are saying that seven thousand pregnancies resulting in rape we don't know how many of those actually end in abortion let's say it's half because you got 3 500 abortions what percentage of 1 million is that not a high percentage and yet that is used as an excuse by the left where we can have no legislation on abortion whatsoever now as to the actual morality of abortion in the cases of rape and incest as i have said one million times in my college speeches and when i speak about this issue there is no one in the united states who is in favor of rape and incest okay if a man rapes a woman he should be castrated or killed if a man commits incest if a man commits incest with his daughter or his sister he should be castrated or killed okay these are these are crimes against human beings these are evil crimes against human beings but one evil crime against a human being does not necessitate the morality of committing a crime against another human being if somebody were to rape a woman the woman were to turn around and shoot an uninvolved third party we would understand that she's not allowed to do that just because something terrible happened to her and yet unfortunately we've decided to conflate the two issues out of sympathy we can all be sympathetic and still recognize that it is an illogical argument that the baby should pay the price for the crime of the father okay in a second i'm going to get to the other arguments with regard to the pro-choice position and then we have a special guest coming up okay so argument number six that the pro-choice movement makes is that it is their body and so you see all of these marches where people are chanting things like my body my choice you see these big rallies people chanting this there's a big rally in los angeles last year in which people were shouting my body my choice and then women were shouting my body my choice and men were shouting back at them your body your choice here's what that sounded like okay so a couple of problems with this particular argument okay problem with this argument number one is that obviously it is not your body that we are talking about when women say why are you so concerned about what goes on in my body my answer is i'm never concerned about what goes on in your esophagus i don't care about what goes on in your kidneys i'm not interested in your circulatory system i'm interested in protecting the living human being that is inside you right now that is the thing that i care about okay then there is the kind of more complex argument that's made by sort of the libertarian contingent of the pro-choice crowd the bodily autonomy argument so this is the argument that you've all heard the the famous violinist in a coma argument right this is the argument where they say you wake up in a room and there is somebody who is hooked up to you via an iv right just a random person and the person is a famous violinist and if you disconnect that iv the person dies do you have an obligation to keep that iv connected between you and the person who is in the coma well this is not a good argument for abortion for a variety of reasons which i'm about to go into in a second first of all if it turns out that the violinist in the coma we know will come out of the coma within nine months and go back to being a normal full-fledged human being it's kind of a dicey proposition to say that you should be able to just pull the plug on the guy right because you know that the person is going to be a full-fledged human being when you're talking about an unborn human baby i mean now a baby born in seven months is much more likely to live than to die so what you're talking about is a time delay in terms of when this person is going to no longer be connected to you so that is point number one point number two unless you were a victim of rape or incest you're complicit in the creation of a child right the entire basis of the famous violinist example is that this person is unrelated to you you had no choice about whether this person was hooked into your veins well if you had consensual sex with someone and got pregnant you are responsible for the act that led to that person being inside you [Applause] pregnancy is a pretty foreseeable risk of consensual sex and was for all of human history regardless of whether you used birth control people who refuse to connect sex with the risk of pregnancy are either lying or they're stupid you wouldn't have an obligation to keep another human being tied into your body if you were knocked out but if you tied the person into your body yourself you probably would right if you hooked the violinist into your veins and made him dependent on you you'd probably now have an obligation not to remove the the iv and then there's another problem and this applies even in the cases of rape and incest where where volunteerism is not really the issue where it was forced upon you right that you didn't consent to the bodily connection and that is that abortion is not just pulling a plug and this is the part that nobody wants to talk about we speak about abortion and euphemisms all the time abortion itself is a euphemism abortion is a word that people think is antiseptic it doesn't do anything to the baby it's the same thing as pulling a plug it is not the same thing as pulling a plug if i change the violinist example so the question is not he's hooked into you with a a line you just have to pull the line but now you have an axe in the room and the only way of disconnecting this guy from you is to chop him in the face with the axe that changes the math a little bit abortion is a violent act it is not merely the disconnection of you from the baby and then the baby dying on its own terms that is not what we are talking about here what we are talking about the process of abortion involves the dismemberment of an incipient human life that's what it is okay finally your child regardless of how it came into you is your child the reason people like to use the famous violinist example is because the violinist is unrelated to you they're a stranger even if god forbid something happened to you that resulted in a pregnancy not of your choosing that is still your child if i said to you that your child were forcibly hooked into you and you didn't have anything to do with it right if i said that if you had a child you didn't know about and that child was forcibly hooked into you wouldn't you have more of a moral obligation to that person than to a stranger you probably would okay argument number seven that the pro-choice movement uses is that it's all about safety for the mother that safety for the mother is the key thing this of course is utterly untrue and there's no science to back this whatsoever first they argue that abortion is safer for mothers than pregnancy because the process of pregnancy is likely to lead to more complications and health problems than abortion would but that's true of a lot of things in life right it's safer for women never to have to leave their homes but we don't grant women the right to engage in identity theft in order they can steal someone's credit cards they never have to leave their home once we're in the business of allowing some people's right to health to overcome other people's right to life we're in seriously dangerous territory it's always easy in life to say you know what would be easier you know i they're dangerous neighborhoods in washington dc maybe you should just go kill everyone in these neighborhoods to make it safer for you to walk out your front door that's not the way that this works you do not get to change