Ben Shapiro

[SheDoneAlreadyDoneHadHerses]

Not sure where this fits in UK statistics but applauds

Bingo!

My life would be very dull indeed if I choose to spend time only with those friends who have exactly the same view as me on all things (I think I would only have one or two friends, TBH)

Bringing Hitler into it is ridiculous.

You might not agree with Shapiro on everything but I have not heard him express views which are out of kilter with mainstream right wing thought.

He is hard right in UK terms. I don't think any UK politician would support the death penalty; clearly the US has different views. His stance on abortion is not mainstream in the UK but it is not extreme from an American point of view.

I care passionately about animal rights, ethical standards in farming and animal welfare. It means I am on the same side as a right wing, former Conservative and conservative Catholic MP, Anne Widdecombe. It does not mean I endorse her views on other matters. From the point of view of our shared concern, if anything , as she is not one of the "usual suspects " I think her involvement helps to give credence.

Conservative thought has does have some things going for it. When conservatives say moral values have gone down the toilet and all the left is about is me me me meeee they're kind of right. I agree with evangelical Christians 100% on porn. Of course many of what they hold to be moral values are pretty debatable, but at least they believe in something.

But the thing with these alt right types is they're not moral conservatives. They're not Ken Clarke or Ann Widecombe or Peter Hitchens or anyone else who has consistent positions on things - they're opportunistic, vulgar shit stirrers who have fuelled the current mass outbreak in racism and misogyny. Shapiro is is of the same ilk as Katie Hopkins and Milo Yiannopopilus. He's anti semitic, he's sexist, and he's a self serving wannabe celeb.

He's Jewish.

Not only is he Jewish he and his family have been at the receiving end of anti-Semitism.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Shapiro?wprov=sfla1

On Israel itself he has actually moved from a hard line position to one that Israel must acknowledge Palestinian rights.

"Some on the right have proposed population transfer from the Gaza Strip or West Bank as a solution. This is both inhumane and impractical. Moving millions of Palestinians out of areas they have known for their entire lives will certainly not pave tpave the way to peace" and while "both right and left agree that a population separation is necessary," he proposes that Israel "has no choice but to weather [the anti-Israeli propaganda]" until a realistic solution comes to light

So far as being sexist, I assume he supports traditional marriage and marriage roles and probably does not support affirmative action. I doubt very much he is sexist in the Trump locker room sense. From Wiki

Shapiro resigned from his position as editor-at-large of Breitbart.com following what he characterized as the website's lack of support for reporter Michelle Fields in response to her alleged assault by Corey Lewandowski, Donald Trump's former campaign manager

Near-term abortion is a red herring, in terms of the debate over women's reproductive rights. It simply does not happen except in extreme circumstances such as to save the mother's life or because the baby would not survive.

But I agree that being anti-abortion is a perfectly logical, ethically-justifiable stance (just one I disagree with profoundly, not least because being anti-legal abortion is effectively being pro-illegal, dangerous abortion - if you don't have the first, you get the second) and not a reason to dismiss someone's views on other issues.

My DF was a GP obstetrician (they don't exist anymore) and saw what happened before legal abortion. Every few weeks they would get an extra flurry of "miscarriages", some with bad effects, most just needing supervision, and the staff knew this meant a back street abortionist had been operating locally. The abortionists didn't work from home, it was too risky. They would come into town, perform abortions, and be on their way. That explained the intermittent pattern.

The staff looked after these women without judgement, and my DF and others wouldn't tell the authorities anything. If asked by the police about a specific patient they would say that a miscarriage is a miscarriage, you can't say what caused it.

My DF was delighted when the Abortion Act came in. He never turned anyone away apart from one young woman who was being bullied into it by her mother. He insisted on talking to her without her mum present.

Although I am pro choice, I can see the argument from both sides.

Making abortion illegal will absolutely drive it underground and force women to have illegal abortions. So, illegal abortions - definitely something to be avoided.

But then the flip side of that is that unprotected sex feels less risky, because of the availability of abortion. Hence - more abortions.

The thing that has always puzzled me is that it is quite easy not to get pregnant, at least in the west. (obviously, I'm not talking about rape, etc).

Even if you have not used contraception, for whatever reason, there is always the morning after pill.

I have managed to have regular sex for decades and not get pregnant when I didn't want to.

And of course, contraception fails. I just wonder whether the number of abortions correlates to failed contraception.

I haven't drilled down into the statistics and the arguments on both sides, so I could be completely off here. Apologies if I am.

I can see both sides but the antiabortion side seems illogical. If every fertilised egg is equivalent to an adult, why are they not going crazy researching and preventing the huge number of fertilized eggs that fail to implant? By far the largest group of conceptions that are lost are lost then, in the first days.That sort of death toll should surely be one of the anti-abortion lobby's top priorities. But it isn't. It doesn't appear to be any sort of priority.

Ditto funerals for miscarriages. If a conceptus is the same as an adult, surely religious people would naturally and automatically hold funerals however early the miscarriage? But, again, they don't. They don't behave as if a fertilized egg has the same value as an adult.

Their behaviour is illogical, and for this reason I believe anti-abortionists are primarily motivated by a desire to control women and to punish them. Also, in America, the right wing groups who object to abortion also object to contraception and to welfare benefits to lone parents.

I remember reading a piece written by someone working in an American abortion clinic who said they frequently saw anti-abortion campaigners. Their self justification was that their need for a termination was serious as opposed to all those other frivolous women. She said they never challenged these patients but they thought a lot.

Their behaviour is illogical, and for this reason I believe anti-abortionists are primarily motivated by a desire to control women and to punish them.

I think this is probably right. I can understand a reluctance to abort a more fully formed being. 'Killing babies' and all that. Highly, highly emotive.

And I also understand the viewpoint that the protection of life starts at conception. However, I don't find that nearly as emotive. And no, it's not logical!

I have to admit, I struggle to come down hard on either side.

But the one thing I feel very strongly about is it is not the place of men to have any kind of legislative input.

One of the couples in my family had to have a very late termination due to a genetic disorder. They could have gone to term - very few babies with this condition are born alive and the longest one has survived was about 2 and with no quality of life. However my SIL couldn't bear carrying a foetus that might be dead or dying and insisted on ending the pregnancy as soon as they knew the score. They were both very opposed to abortion and my DB tried to persuade her out of it, until her psychiatrist told him he was looking at a dead baby and a hugely damaged wife if she had to wait any longer. She's a Catholic and even her priest told them a termination in such circumstances was ok by him. So they had a late abortion, took photos and hand prints, and - yes - they did have a funeral which the whole family attended apart from me. I was 8 months pregnant. It was terribly sad but what would have happened if my poor SIL had had to carry that pregnancy to term I dread to think.

I can see both sides but the antiabortion side seems illogical. If every fertilised egg is equivalent to an adult, why are they not going crazy researching and preventing the huge number of fertilized eggs that fail to implant? By far the largest group of conceptions that are lost are lost then, in the first days.That sort of death toll should surely be one of the anti-abortion lobby's top priorities. But it isn't. It doesn't appear to be any sort of priority

I don't think that what you have said is logical. If a fertilised egg is lost then presumably that is simply "god's will" ( if you believe in a god) or, if you don't, it is simply a zygote which was not viable, for whatever reason. That is quite different from choosing to abort a viable zygote.

Re your point about such spontaneous abortions not having funerals or being mourned, from a purely practical point of view there may be nothing to hold a funeral for. But people do mourn over spontaneous abortions - one sees on here descriptions of miscarrying at a point which (to me anyway) is just a late period.

Still birth in the U.K is after 24 weeks and that is recorded. Parents do hold funerals for still births and for those less than 24 weeks.

I don't know who Ben Shapiro is but I absolutely cannot see the argument against abortion rights. I have, along with friends, gone to oppose the ghastly "pro life" (who are nothing of the sort and just aggressive misogynists, from my conversations with them) and attempted to debate with them. They are, in the main, horrendous. That they seek to deny women the right to decide what happens with their own bodies is abhorrent, as is their handing out of leaflets with misleading and completely inaccurate "information" on them such as suggesting having an abortion increases chances of various cancers (I still have one or two of them and if there was a case against abortion I'd have thought they'd not need to peddle lies) and hounding women who are trying to access the clinic constantly (including recording them in some - not the one near me but I've heard of it happening in others). I'm a little shocked some on here think there's a case against abortion rights, as it's one issue even people I know who aren't feminists agree on.

Sorry, my second sentence should read I have, along with friends, gone to oppose the ghastly "pro life" (who are nothing of the sort and just aggressive misogynists, from my conversations with them) protesters constantly stationed outside the Marie Stopes clinic near me and attempted to debate with them.

That's a very interesting post Datun at 12:19. Like you I spent decades being sexually active and not getting pregnant. Literally the only time I did not use contraception I became pregnant.

I have to admit to a degree of equivocation to coming to a pro choice stance and get there from a least worse choice route. I don't think the circumstances available need to be terrible to make it "the least worst choice"- being born to a woman who doesn't want to be a mother would be enough.

I don't think I'd value the views of any man who's anti-abortion on anything. Well, I know I wouldn't.

But then the flip side of that is that unprotected sex feels less risky, because of the availability of abortion.

I'm dubious about this being the case though of course have no statistics or anything to back this up. Women who have abortions don't do so lightly. It's, from what I hear, not exactly a run of the mill or simple process to go through, in any way. Not exactly something you can just happily stroll off and have done after unprotected sex if you become pregnant.

Playing devil's advocate here but Julie Burchill has frequently written about her 5 abortions. I am pro choice but I do find it a little odd that someone as intelligent, forceful, wealthy and living in London couldn't access effective contraception.

I suppose there will always be a minority who use abortions in that way, but I still doubt it's a commonplace attitude. Those I've heard of who've had abortions don't speak about it like that at all nor see it as an alternative to contraception.

amy

I hear what you're saying. And I would like to agree unequivocally. But I am reminded of a girlfriend of mine who used abortion as means of 'ultimate contraception'. She didn't use protection and had 5-6 abortions as a result.

I cannot imagine why. Contraception is a piece of piss compared to abortion. She was an intelligent women. All I can think is that somehow 'sex' and 'pregnancy' to some people don't seem to be the fairly sure fire cause and effect that they are.

Minutes after the first time I had unprotected sex with DH (trying to conceive), I said, hey I could be pregnant now!' He said 'yeah right'.

I was. His disconnect was surprising to say the least.

I still would highly doubt it's a commonplace attitude. I have spoken to and heard from some women who've had abortions and they didn't go into them from that point nor spoke of having it as being an easy process or one they thought nothing of. As I said, there may always be some who do use it like that (I won't say "abuse" it as I believe abortion services should be there for all women who want or need to have them) but that's not, to me, any argument against abortion rights. I do also personally feel it's slightly a derailing issue given how vital abortion rights are for women, and in my opinion intrinsic to women's rights generally.

I agree that using abortion as contraception isn't commonplace, but I suspect most of know someone (even if it's a friend of a friend of a friend type person) who has done so.

I completely agree that women should be front and centre in legislating on abortion / women's reproductive health , but I don't agree that only women should legislate on these issues, in the same way that it shouldn't only be disabled representatives who get to legislate on issue regarding disability. But I bet you are thinking of that recent picture from the US and cringing - I know I am

But I bet you are thinking of that recent picture from the US and cringing - I know I am

Yup. Can't get it out of my head.

I really don't understand why a handful of people using abortion as contraception is even relevant to the abortion debate (not that I feel there should even be any debate on it). I always thought it was the kind of argument which was used by anti-abortion activists to try to undermine abortion rights, suggesting women routinely use it in such a manner. A small minority of people use all sorts of rights in ways which they shouldn't. It's a vital right and so important for women to be able to access. To bring up a small number who use it in the way described is, in my opinion, an attack on that right in itself, even if it's not intended to be - it feeds into the rhetoric anti-choice people use.

Whilst it's impossible for only women to legislate on abortion given the political system (only certain kinds of people being able to legislate on certain issues would be a dangerous route to go down, not least in terms of sex), I am very uneasy at the idea of men dictating to women on the subject. It's also why I'd not entertain any kind of relationship with a man who was anti-abortion, nor attach any value to their views, as I'd see them as quite misogynistic.

Amy My point is that we can't deny such people exist, even if we - correctly, IMO - then argue that they are not a reason to curtail access to legal abortion for everyone else.

Lass I've had late periods and I've had early miscarriages. They are very different things, sadly