Could you post the source for your pre-Roe v Wade statistics?

But the deceision to raise the child can be made when the baby is born. If you are pregnant and don't think you can care for the baby you don't have to kill it, just let another family raise it.

My ex would have been better of with abortions,instead of that she was being an alcoholic while being pregnant killing the unborn child that way and the second from another man was sick and only 3 years old when he died.

Sometimes being born is worse than unknowingly not existing in my opinion.

The thing is not the words you use its the total scope of your conversations that nails your outlook.  You would never see it because you do not hear how you give meaning to the different groups.  You say leftie and then what you say afterwards giving it context.  Just like you do not say rightie but instead say conservative.  If you do not notice the difference in context and how you delineated the different groups then you will always be blind to your own bias.

As to the interviewer, he is directly questioning Ben on what he stated in his book compared to statements he has made in the past.  It's up to Ben to deal with his positions in the past to show how he has evolved into the person who wrote that book.  Its not the interviewer portraying some opposing position, it's Ben being questioned is he actually grandstanding or does the rules apply to just everyone else but not to himself.  The interviewer actually gave Ben a chance to give his own testimony on this evolution but instead Ben got angry and arrogant as if why should he be questioned on his position.

What Ben wanted was to be treated with kid gloves.  As you stated, if the interviewer acted life a typical conservative Ben wouldn't have gone on the offensive.  What you and Ben wanted is the echo chamber where people say what you want to hear and throw softball questions in your wheelhouse. Ben wasn't ready to be challenged and he was exposed.  Ben may have stated he has made errors in the past but in reality Ben does not truly believe it.  You can tell that when he admitted he made some bad quotes but then tried to justify it to the interviewer.  

I can name you 3 children I know born to women who had addictions and they are living a very good life under the care of a foster parent.  The question would be how do you determine who gets the right to live and and who doesn't just because someone is poor or have an addiction.  There are a number of children born with all types of deformities and you hear stories how they overcome such situations.  

Abortion is the right to terminate a potential life and as long as we do not have to worry about thinking of the fetus as anything more than a clump of cells it makes it all right.  We do not have a way to see in the future of the child that never came to be or the life they could have lived, experience or anything.  Abortion will always be the selfish desire society where it's more convenient to terminate potential life because it would be inconvenient to let it live.

Again, when I'm being specific and describing something a lefty would do, do you want me to say liberal and piss them off since I or they do not feel they should fall into that description? Should I call everyone on the right a conservative or does the far right, etc, require their own label?

If the interviewer isn't doing so in good faith why should Ben play ball? If Ben is going to point out things like he's being misquoted, and the interviewer doesn't care and just keeps on pushing, then Ben might as well just shut the conversation down because it's not longer a good faith conversation, if that was even the point to begin with, but is becoming a hit piece as it goes on. It seems that Ben isn't entirely convinced it was only meant to smear him, but he doesn't seem to think it was presented in a proper manner. I don't necessarily disagree.

I wouldn't say he wanted to be treated as the adult in the room, but he did seem to expect that going into it, since that's typically how it ends up. This interviewer knew what they were doing and did make Ben look foolish. The question is did the interviewer really care about what Ben thinks, or was he just looking to trip Ben up and took the time to carefully choose the questions and present them in a manner that would likely cause Ben to react as he did and get knocked down a peg or two? 

Just because you're caught off guard once doesn't mean you're something you're not. When an army was caught of guard and was decimated because of it, did that mean it was a weak army, or could they very well have been one of the best, but some enemy with careful planning finally got the better of them? Has everything that army has accomplished up until now become meaningless since they lost once?

The most likely reason Ben has been fairly silent on it is because that's the best way to make it fade and quickly. It doesn't matter whether they caught him or he just had a bad interview, as far as he's concerned, if he keeps bringing it up it will constantly be thrown in his face by his opposition. Trying to reason with them will just make the situation worse for him no matter what he says going forward, no matter how legit it may be. Just letting it go for the most part is the smartest thing he could do, until he get's a shot at round 2, if he ever does.

When a person shows you who they are you should always believe them.  Its the moments when a person isn't prepared is when you see who they truly are, not when they have a chance to perform.

Shapiro explains the entire BBC interview situation. Some is factual and some is opinion. 37:50 - 49:00. Lot's of context in there.

52:10 to 52:25 is also quite telling about Ben...

A few points:

The first thing Ben brings up is that he explains the interview was set up by the BBC as a typical interview to talk about his book, and that he wasn't really anticipating the type of 'interview' it turned out to be, since it was more like a debate and clearly wasn't aimed at talking about the book. Due to this, Ben didn't research the interviewer and prep for a debate, like how the interviewer clearly did against him. Tough to make them look foolish when you know nothing about them and they know what they feel they need to about you.

He agree's he made some poor decisions and said some stupid things, but that the interview wasn't done in good faith. He even points out the BBC producer tweeted out afterwards something along the lines of, 'this was a good example of why you should have people like Shapiro on so you can attack their character'. So basically trick them into coming on the show and then ambush them. Ben does give the interviewer props for getting the better of him regardless and admits he needs to keep his guard up going forward.

That's just a small portion of what's said, but based on what Ben explains here, much of what I've pointed out throughout the conversation already, are in line with what Ben says happened and Steven seems to mostly agree as well. Some things being factual and some opinion.

This same statement can be made regarding pretty much every contraceptive device. Fact is, you are making a decision about potential life every time you choose to have sex (or choose to not have sex) be it protected or unprotected. Protecting "potential life" is a silly rabbit hole with the lines arbitrarily drawn wherever feels good. That should not be the basis of legislation.

At the end of the day, the goal of abortion laws should be to act in the interests of society. Allowing women to make choices about their own bodies and have greater agency regarding their life is in the benefit of society. It is no more "selfish" than any other choice that an individual makes regarding their lives...