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.

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...

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.

White US Christian male.
White US Christian female.
White US Jewish male.
White US Jewish female.
White US other male.
White US other female.
White foreign Christian male.
White foreign Christian female.
White foreign Jewish male.
White foreign Jewish female.
White foreign other male.
White foreign other female.
POC US Christian male.
POC US Christian female.
POC US other male.
POC US other female.
POC foreign Christian male.
POC foreign Christian female.
POC foreign other male.
POC foreign other female.

Their outrage for this issue lies near the bottom of their hierarchy of give-a-damn.

There is a big difference between no conception at all and an actual life that is conceived and then destroyed.  I highly doubt you can really make the same case between the 2 scenarios.  If the fetus was left to develop would it not become a human child.

Abortion is the destruction of life and yes it does act in the interest of the current society but that does not eliminate the fact of what it does.  There is a life developing in the woman's body and and as a society we say that life doesn't matter but instead giving women the choice to let it live or die.  I am not arguing either for or against abortion but I do get tired of people trying to find a way to sugar coat the act of abortion to make the decision easier.  It is a selfish choice as it's a decision to terminate a life or not.  Whatever reason you wake up in the morning to justify it doesn't eliminate that fact.

You seem to be flipping back and forth between classifying a fertilized egg as "life" and "potential life", however, both definitions are fairly meaningless. A cell is alive whether it is a sperm cell or a fertilized egg, and both can be classified as potential life depending on where you arbitrarily draw a boundary. However, neither should be used as a basis for determining whether something has a right to life (as they are both fairly meaningless within this discussion).

You continue to use language stating that it is "selfish" (which I would consider taking a stance on abortion, but you do you), however, I maintain that an abortion is no more selfish than using birth control or not wanting to crash your car into a tree. While it is primarily looking out for yourself, it is no more in the detriment of others than it would be to ejaculate into a condom and prevent the spermatozoa from fertilizing an egg.

I would also argue that this line of reasoning which accepts the societal good of abortion, but still attempts to stigmatize it, does no functional good in society, as it harms women by making it more difficult for women to get abortions and helps justify limiting abortion rights.

I use the word selfish because I continue to hear all the excuses.  It's a woman's right to her body, financial support, parents are poor you name it.  We are full of excuses but excuses are exactly what they are.  We use those excuses for justification of our decision and actions.

As to your last paragraph, I am going to stop you right there.  I am not arguing for acceptance of abortion because I do not accept it.  I just know that society depending on where you live will make a decision on this matter and currently that is the accepted course.  As I will state again, I believe Abortion is the termination and destruction of life and all I hear is excuses to exercise this decision. 

So you didn't read the post I quoted at all.  It wasn't about abortions at all.

Please try to read everything before rage posting.

Where's the outrage from the so-called "pro-life" crowd?

What you just did was show how Ben went into his safe place where no one will challenge him and talked about the interview.  It doesn't matter what he thought since being prepared is only a way to say you are ready to show a side of yourself you have prepared and performed many of times.  Everything you just stated is Ben believing he was going to be treated with kids gloves.  He believed he was in his safe bubble where he is thrown soft questions he could easily answer.

The interviewer directly challenged Ben and he came up short, there is no bones about that.  Everything else is trying to soften the blow.  It was a book review where the person who wrote the book has acted contrary to what they presented in the pass and when giving the opportunity to address those issues Ben showed in that moment who he is.  No preparations, no performance, just raw emotion.   

Crowder is a safe space? When someone mostly agree's with you, there's zero possibility it's because their logic tells them you were mostly justified?

So Ben was asked to do an interview on his book, and when the time came they didn't interview him about his book, but they did pose questions to Ben about things he's done or said in general, and because he wasn't prepared to combat that in a worthy manner since he wasn't anticipating the ambush, it's entirely Bens fault and he just needs to deal with it?

So say there's someone who knows a famous guy who is publicly vocal about upholding the second amendment, who loves guns, uses them all the time, has fast reaction times and is deadly accurate, and is always conceal carrying in public. This is something quite well known about this famous guy by many. This someone hosts a speaking event and invites the famous guy to be the main speaker. After finishing their famous guy welcoming speech, instead of this someone presenting their hand in good faith while exiting the stage, they pull a gun and put an entire clip into the famous guy, killing him before he can react. The famous guy, as always, was conceal carrying at the time.

In court, this someone explains to the judge it's not their fault that the famous guy was tricked into thinking he was simply going to be giving a speech at a friendly event, and that the famous guy should have been quite capable of backing up his claims mentally and physically, yet he could not when put to the test. The judge, who is you by chance, agree's with this someone and acquits them of all charges.

Umm, ok?