Ben Shapiro’s Answer To Student’s Abortion Question Is Epic

[Jazzhead]

No, because that doesn't differentiate aborting a fetus from killing an adult.

And now I'm going to let the pointless sound and fury wash over because the simple fact of the matter is that abortion will never, ever, ever, ever (say it as many times as you have breath) be illegal again in this country and all you do by trying to ignore that reality is alienate people whose support on other issues you need.  It's a stupid, pointless exercise that achieves nothing other than giving more support, not less, to the liberals.  It drives off moderates and independents and splits the GOP to no good advantage. 

Now let the flaming commence.

The moral arguments against abortion will be received with greater force if they are not draped around legal arguments empowering the state to compel reproduction.  It's a woman's choice folks.   Try to convince her to do the right thing.  But leave the state out of it.   

[Jazzhead]

You are getting further and further out.  I never said I would let children die in the gutter.  I said I support programs and charities that provide for the actual needs of the child, not give cash to the mother.  It must be tiring reaching as far as you do to cast aspersions.  I pity your amorality and lack of concern for the smallest and weakest among us. It will cost you dearly some day, just as the cheapening of life has cost all in our society.

I have no doubt you are a moral human being, Mom MD.   I believe the same of Oceander.   The difference is Oceander doesn't want to engage the state to impose his morality on others. 

Persuasion, not coercion, is the answer.   

[TomSea]

No, because that doesn't differentiate aborting a fetus from killing an adult.

And now I'm going to let the pointless sound and fury wash over because the simple fact of the matter is that abortion will never, ever, ever, ever (say it as many times as you have breath) be illegal again in this country and all you do by trying to ignore that reality is alienate people whose support on other issues you need.  It's a stupid, pointless exercise that achieves nothing other than giving more support, not less, to the liberals.  It drives off moderates and independents and splits the GOP to no good advantage. 

Now let the flaming commence.

It wouldn't be legal in places like Mississippi without judicial overreach; it is something that should be left to the states and that day may indeed come.

So, your argument is not constitutional. Be happy with it.

[TomSea]

I have no doubt you are a moral human being, Mom MD.   I believe the same of Oceander.   The difference is Oceander doesn't want to engage the state to impose his morality on others. 

Persuasion, not coercion, is the answer.

Rights of the state and the Constitution are the answer. Mississippi doesn't think like the Eastern Seaboard. You have no moral authority on this matter as well.

[RoosGirl]

The moral arguments against abortion will be received with greater force if they are not draped around legal arguments empowering the state to compel reproduction.  It's a woman's choice folks.   Try to convince her to do the right thing.  But leave the state out of it.

This ongoing "argument" that it's the woman's choice is ridiculous.  I've heard it for YEARS, and I used to believe it.  Until I read several stories about the fathers who didn't want their baby aborted.  Guess you fellas don't mind ceding your rights to women.

[Smokin Joe]

It need not be legal in every state or every county or every jurisdiction. In fact, I think county wise, it's only performed in a small percentage of counties in the US.

Well, darn, it's just so much more efficient to do such things in centralized facilities.

Where have we seen that approach before?

[TomSea]

SCOTUS ruled a slave was 3/5ths a human being, so be happy anyone who waves SCOTUS decisions around. There was a war fought over this; 500,000 people died, well, at least partially over it, depending on how one sees it.

You have states with only one abortion clinic so to arrogantly tell others it will always be legal; is really an ignorant-of-the-facts statement, it's close to a reality.

[Hoodat]

This ongoing "argument" that it's the woman's choice is ridiculous.  I've heard it for YEARS, and I used to believe it.  Until I read several stories about the fathers who didn't want their baby aborted.

Men don't have abortion rights, which in itself is discriminatory.  Maybe instead they should let men opt out of paying child support.

[Hoodat]

SCOTUS ruled a slave was 3/5ths a human being,

It is the Constitution that says it - not SCOTUS.  Ironically, it was the Northerners who pushed for the 3/5 rule while the Southerners argued that a slave should count as a whole person.

[TomSea]

It is the Constitution that says it - not SCOTUS.  Ironically, it was the Northerners who pushed for the 3/5 rule while the Southerners argued that a slave should count as a whole person.

I'd like to see proof of such an assertion, especially since individual voting rights was an issue up to the 1960s:

Impact before the Civil War

The Three-Fifths Compromise gave a disproportionate representation of slave states in the House of Representatives relative to the voters in free states until the American Civil War. In 1793, for example, Southern slave states had 47 of the 105 members but would have had 33, had seats been assigned based on free populations. In 1812, slave states had 76 out of 143 instead of the 59 they would have had; in 1833, 98 out of 240 instead of 73. As a result, Southern states had disproportionate influence on the presidency, the speakership of the House, and the Supreme Court in the period prior to the Civil War.[8] Along with this must be considered the number of slave and free states, which remained mostly equal until 1850, safeguarding the Southern bloc in the Senate as well as Electoral College votes.

Historian Garry Wills has postulated that without the additional slave state votes, Jefferson would have lost the presidential election of 1800.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise

[Bigun]

It is the Constitution that says it - not SCOTUS.  Ironically, it was the Northerners who pushed for the 3/5 rule while the Southerners argued that a slave should count as a whole person.

@Hoodat

Careful!  You'll set liberal heads to spinning with that kind of information!

[TomSea]

With Gorsuch nominated, it might come in the next 10 years, that the right of the states to legislate on this issue may come about. That is all Senator Rand Paul believes and I'd wager that could be what some of those other Senators want as well.

You have states like Wyoming, with extremely low abortion rates, like 3 per 100,000; not all that many people in Wyoming and then, other states with 10 times that amount.

[TomSea]

@Hoodat

Careful!  You'll set liberal heads to spinning with that kind of information!

And let's see it proven!

No, let's not, it's off topic.

[TomSea]

Rick Santorum compared slavery and abortion, let's hope this can be seen as not off-topic, to start getting into what the 3/5ths compromise is off topic.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/01/santorum-on-obama-remarkable-for-a-black-man-to-support-abortion-rights/69944/

[IsailedawayfromFR]

The moral arguments against abortion will be received with greater force if they are not draped around legal arguments empowering the state to compel reproduction.  It's a woman's choice folks.   Try to convince her to do the right thing.  But leave the state out of it.

'Compel reproduction'?  The Reproduction cycle begins when a sperm cell meets a willing egg at the right time and the right place, and goes on from there.  It is called Biology.

Are you placing magic powers onto a state?

[Hoodat]

I'd like to see proof of such an assertion, especially since individual voting rights was an issue up to the 1960s:

U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 2


Paragraph 3
------------

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

[TomSea]

The South did not give voting rights to Slaves, why should they be given full-count when it was to puff up slave state numbers in the House of Representatives?  South Carolina may have been 80% slaves, I'm sure they weren't voting for Jefferson Davis.

Jim Crow existed in this country until not too long ago.

[Smokin Joe]

The South did not give voting rights to Slaves, why should they be given full-count when it was to puff up slave state numbers in the House of Representatives?  South Carolina may have been 80% slaves, I'm sure they weren't voting for Jefferson Davis.

Jim Crow existed in this country until not too long ago.

The North didn't give voting rights to women. Maybe they shouldn't have counted either. The importance of the census was to allocate representation in the House of Representatives (number of representatives) .

[IsailedawayfromFR]

The South did not give voting rights to Slaves, why should they be given full-count when it was to puff up slave state numbers in the House of Representatives?  South Carolina may have been 80% slaves, I'm sure they weren't voting for Jefferson Davis.

Jim Crow existed in this country until not too long ago.

It was not about voting, but about the number of people counted for apportionment of each state's representation in the House.

The same thing is happening now with illegals being counted.

[RoosGirl]

Men don't have abortion rights, which in itself is discriminatory.  Maybe instead they should let men opt out of paying child support.

Haha, talk about making heads explode.

[Suppressed]

I'd like to see proof of such an assertion, especially since individual voting rights was an issue up to the 1960s:

@TomSea


What a horrific citation you give...

The Three-Fifths Compromise gave a disproportionate representation of slave states in the House of Representatives relative to the voters in free states until the American Civil War. In 1793, for example, Southern slave states had 47 of the 105 members but would have had 33, had seats been assigned based on free populations.

  (Bold added)

It's "disproportionate" only if you think slaves don't count for anything.


What a lovely view.

[Suppressed]

No one forces anyone to have children, it is well known how pregnancy occurs and how to avoid it.

Yeah, don't get raped.

[TomSea]

@TomSea


What a horrific citation you give...
  (Bold added)

It's "disproportionate" only if you think slaves don't count for anything.


What a lovely view.

I didn't say that. You aren't following the conversation.

@Suppressed

Watch liberal heads explode when what was happening was asking for over-representation by the South. But this was taken off topic.

Slave states would take the population to get better representation but wouldn't give those same slaves the right to vote.

[roamer_1]

I have no doubt you are a moral human being, Mom MD.   I believe the same of Oceander.   The difference is Oceander doesn't want to engage the state to impose his morality on others. 

Persuasion, not coercion, is the answer.

The state, sanctioning the murder (taking the life) of the unborn IS imposing a morality.

And it is wholly against it's aegis - The very FIRST enumerated right is the right to life.

[Smokin Joe]

Yeah, don't get raped.

Even then, Killing the one person who did nothing even arguably wrong to cause their existence is the solution?