For rare instances such ad incest, rape, and health issues I think it makes sense to allow abortions. The issue I have with it is that the vast majority of abortions are not because of incest, rape, and/or health issues.

The falling down the stairs example is hard to prove but I believe that investigators have the capabilities to figure out if someone was purposely trying to get rid of their baby based on their past actions. 

And those laws are dumb. The only reasons that animals should be killed is for food and for self defense if you're attacked by a bear or something. Also the death penalty is also immoral imo.

Another way to look at that is, should the child be killed because it was brought into the world due to rape or incest.  Of course this would mean that a person would believe on conception that the embryo is a living being or just a clump of cells.  It's difficult but if you value the sanctity of life then yes, even if the child was conceived through those means then it has a right to live just like any other living being.  If you do not believe in the sanctity of life and that the embryo is just a clump of cells, even if it has a heartbeat and developed brain then sure, get rid of it.  People preach about morals until they are faced with difficult situations and like the animals we all are throw those high minded morals out the window when its convenient.

That would be perfect if Trump actually did not attack first and then response.  You act as if no one has viewed his behavior before during and after becoming president.  How he is the person first to start the name calling, belittling and other crap.  Give me a break with this BS you are spilling about Trump, we have way to much evidence of his character for you to try to justify how he acts.

As to Ben did you see the interview.  Ben has every instance to throw those quotes back at the interviewer and show how he has changed from those stance but did not.  As was stated, you cannot talk about change if you cannot prove you are changed.  You cannot profess to be above something if you still wallow in it.  Nowhere did Ben show that he could prove his words and thus they become hollow.  As always apologist like you will always turn a blind eye when someone shows you who they are instead of listening to their words.  Action is way more effective then some book or a bunch of words.

If you come out into the public with your opinions, then you invite scrutiny.  If you are someone like Ben who has very strong opinions that are definitely polarizing to a lot of people then yes you do need to justify yourself.  Why should anyone give Ben a pass, he definitely doesn't give anyone a pass and he is more than happy to give his viewpoint on individuals which he has done a number of times.  I really do not get what you are saying.  Ben isn't a saint and he has torched people on a number of times so why should anyone go at him with kid gloves.  He is an adult and if he can give it he sure as hell should be able to take it.

Yes, I have seen when someone has said something stupid and people bring it up.  What I usually see is that people get upset just like Ben when they have said something stupid and people bring it up.  What you do not see is people willing to just simply say, yes, that was a mistake.  What you do not see is a person being humble about mistakes in the past an come forward with it.  If Ben did that, it would have shut the interviewer down because you cannot continue to challenge a person on a previous wrong if the person is willing to admit they were and be humble about it.  What happen with Ben is that you can see he hasn't moved on from those days.  The reason you get upset is that secretly you still feel the same way and you hate to be called out on it.  You cannot fight hate with anger when challenged and you definitely cannot get riled up when challenged about your past.  It shows he has a ways to go before he can expect others to change and move on when he hasn't himself.

Today's US politics isn't about hate in the way you state it, its about power.  Hate is being used as a weapon which we see everyday. it's more about showing the difference between everyone and making people fear those differences which is used as fuel for votes and power and currently it appears the Republicans are using it more then the Dems but both parties do the same.

why would you bring up the claim that an embryo is anything other than a clump of cells?

Not sure exactly what you are asking.  Do you disagree that there are people and a whole lot of them that believe that an Embryo is an actual living being.  I am not questioning if it is or isn't if you read my statement.  If you have a question on the word embryo, I suggest you read the definition of a fertilized egg is and what groups consider it a living being onced fertilized.

and there are people who believe that the earth is flat, but we don't take them seriously... why?

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Ben doesn't do a great job of explaining since he quickly goes on the offensive because he is assuming the early questions are a sign of a string of attacks to follow, in which case he wasn't really wrong. I'm not saying his answers clearly explained the questions asked of him, but because he didn't want to waste time answering them again when he has already for the most part, just not in this particular interview, he decided to go on the offensive early since he figured if he didn't, he would end up stuck on defense, and he was correct based on how it plays out.

For the most part, Ben is just using conservative logic. Instead of waiting to get pushed into a corner and using lefty spin to get out of the situation, he's preemptively attacking so he doesn't allow the interviewer to dig Ben a deeper hole as he goes. However, this interviewer knows what he's doing and doesn't back down easily like most typically do. Closer to the end you finally see Ben call him out and points out he's misquoting Ben, and the interviewer just keeps on pushing anyway, until Ben finally says enough is enough. Again, while Ben could have handled this more professionally, what he did wasn't totally uncalled for.

The fact that Ben posed a question to the interviewer and he wanted nothing to do with it, says he wasn't willing to have an honest conversation. That's a tactic as well. If the interviewer is willing to answer that first question honestly, then Ben can assume he's not simply out to get him, and will likely follow suit. Since the interviewer made it clear that he's in charge and things will be going his way or else, Ben made a judgement call and decided to play it safe, and was right for the most part. Not entirely, but mostly.

Action is more effective than words? Really? How much action vs words happened during the interview? How much more action would happen vs words if Trump was allowed to get stuff done instead of bickering over nonsense?

So what exactly are you saying??  If a group believe something you don't, you do not take that group serious.  So do you dismiss all Christians or Muslims which is a pretty large group or anyone who believe on conception the embryo is alive. Are you saying what you believe is the only thing worth considering and everyone else is wrong.  Exactly what are you asking??  When is life defined based on the embryo.  Hasn't that always been the debate on Abortion or do you believe only when the embryo is a certain age.  Do you believe there is a soul or do you dismiss that as well.  

Not sure what interview you watched but I saw someone question a person pass and the action was the person got upset.  What that person did not do is explain their position.  Ben makes a living on questioning other people who make statements so do not act as if he is somehow above the same.  I just watched a bunch of videos by Ben and what I see is that he has a platform to speak his mind without anyone questioning him on his opinion.  I watched him question Ben Hodge, Piers Morgan Ocario and others.  He himself quotes those people then goes on about their statements.  So No Ben isn't beyond approach from this interview and when directly question on his own bad statements he showed he can only give it but not take it.

No Ben wanted to be treated with kid gloves as if he ever did the same for others and when he was challenged he came up short.  No matter how we discuss this issue, we both will not see it the same.  I have no skin in the game with Ben so I have no rose colored glasses to see him any different then his performance.  So you can take all your lefty this and conservative that and put it in a placed directly representative of the toxic nature we currently live today.  You paint everyone into a group so you can apply your labels and have the comfort of mind putting them into a box.

Last but not least, you are so quick to be the savior of Ben and give him a pass but even Ben himself did not give himself a pass on the interview which I do give him props for in his tweet.

Ben tweeted: “@afneil DESTROYS Ben Shapiro! So that’s what that feels like ;) Broke my own rule, and wasn’t properly prepared. I’ve addressed every single issue he raised before; see below. Still, it’s Neil 1, Shapiro 0.”

He earlier apologised on social media to Neil, saying he had “misinterpreted his antagonism as political leftism”.

Interesting enough the guy who was interviewing Ben is a big conservative and is part of conservative group which during the interview he stated if Ben knew him he would know he wasn't the lefty he proscribed him to be. As always you are the apologist.