Are you convinced by Ben Shapiro's anti-abortion argument?
This came up through our subreddit in this video. The thread references is here: https://www.reddit.com/r/thedavidpakmanshow/comments/7l1qyg/ben_shapiros_anti_abortion_argument/
What do you think? Would love your thoughts...
▶️ DTube
▶️ IPFS
I would love to see you on the Bill Maher show, not only would it be really entertaining and informative, It would be really great for steemit as a platform!!
I would love to be on, although I'm sure he has an interest in having me!
I see profound irony in Shapiro's argument, as he continues to act like a semi-intellectual scalpel for reframing many ideas that religious zealots have held for centuries. Let's apply the same logic about the moment of conception. If that is the baseline for the assigning a zygote the full potential of an adult, then your position was 'conceived' alongside the catholic church's desire for more followers bumping against prior centuries of sensible prevention and (then dangerous and barbaric) abortion. Can WE now characterize that position as willfully-blind self-interest until the end of time?
I think you have a solid assessment here
I am not convinced by anything he says. Ever.
I don't think it is a valid comparison, though I agree with Shapiro on other subjects, this one makes not much sense to me. It is more out of a religion based stubborness that he opposes this. When you come from a wealthy family, getting a child at any age is not such a big deal. Don't get me wrong, getting children IS a big deal, but having the option to not have a child when you come from a progressive, but poorer family it defines the rest of your life. You'll probably have to quit school or uni for a time, because parentsboth work full time etc...
Putting aside pragmatic arguments in favor of deliberate parenthood (reduced crime, more stable families, and higher average education and earnings) there are a few gaps in his logic. His argument is based on the premise that if something (someone) achieves a state of potential sentience, morally, it must be legally defended. He attempts to solidfy this position through analogy by comparing an embryo and a person in a coma, each in a limbo state of potential sentience, and each therefore being defensible.
A key distinction overlooked with this comparison is that a fetus has never achieved sentience, whereas a person in a coma has reached the state of being a conscious person, and then had this state temporarily or indefinitely suspended. That the person in a coma can have this consciousness restored is essential, as the legal entity was already instantiated, whereas in the case of the fetus this was never the case. With this, his basic premise is a false equivalence and the analogy falls through, particularly when considering this as the basis for legislation.
Second, and perhaps even more convincingly, an unborn fetus, which albeit can potentially reach a state of sentience, is nevertheless dependent upon continual nurturance of a self-determining legal person. Neither a fetus, nor a fully sentient person, ever has the unequivocal right to the unconsensual use of another person’s body. The state does not, and should not, have the jurisdiction to dictate the use of a person’s body in this way. This leaves the situation firmly in favor of a pro-choice stance.
Hearing a bloke decide what's best for women is never convincing.
How can it be?
Yeah, most billionaires are absolutely silly stupid. Wow. I can't finish listening - you mentioned critical thinking in another video. You should try it.