Where Ben Shapiro Fails
NAMO TASSA BHAGAVATO ARAHATO SAMMASAMBUDDHASSA
NAMOTASSA BHAGAVATO ARAHATO SAMMASAMBUDDHASSA
NAMOTASSA BHAGAVATO ARAHATO SAMMASAMBUDDHASSA
Translation: May veneration be presented to the exalted one who is a Buddha and has achieved enlightenment by himself righteously. X3
To begin with, I would like to say that I apologize to Mr. Ben Shapiro if any of this seems like am simply making a malicious personal attack upon him or his religious belief. I agree with much of what he has to say, but because of his potential influence it’s important to have certain things discussed. Having said that, first I would like to comment on what would seem to be Ben Shapiro’s hypocrisy, as it is the hypocrisy most blatant and common of the Abrahmic lineage of religion you see, as he often freely discusses himself being an Orthodox Jew he believes in the murdering “God” of Abraham.
The argument that is most given by the Abrahmic religion types when you question the morality of a “God” that can freely have the choice to murder whom ever it should wish is that theirs is the “creator God” who can destroy whatever or whomever he has created and do so without dare being questioned because it presumably is the source of all that is good!
So, if indeed abortion should be considered murder but the deity you worship as all good can murder at will without question, then YOU sir, and such people like you, are hypocrites.
If Planned Parenthood and the like started holding religious services, Ben Shapiro and his ilk would be quickly screwed out of their argument.
“Your God kills people and our Planned Parenthood deity tells us to perform abortions”
What would they say?
“We believe that abortion is murderer and that our killing deity is more righteous than yours?”
Believing that murdering ALL sentient beings on the planet except for a chosen few for not following and worshiping him as he would wish(1), and murdering ALL of the first born of Egypt, when many sweet little babies were undoubtedly MURDERED just to name but two examples(2), these types never have a problem with any of it.
Ben Shapiro has stated that he supports capital punishment only in cases of murder or rape,(3) but apparently his creator deity God gets the free pass!
Their Abrahmic deity by their own scriptures testimony, must be the worst serial killing mass murderer in all of human history.
Should his religious beliefs simply be a personal matter?
Not when your a public figure who freely makes mention of it, and in case anyone is wondering, for those who know that I am a Buddhist monk, the Buddhist religion prohibits killing people of course, but you will need to make your own opinionated stance regarding abortion before drawing a comparison that would in anyway imply a contradiction.
If any should wish to convince you that none of this matters because of some type of religious reformation, you may wish to remind both the Christian and Jew that their own religious scripture declares that the nature of their God deity is that which does not change.(4)
The bottom line is this:
Ben Shapiro and others like him don’t like baby killers…..
Unless it’s the baby killer they worship as being the pure fountain of all that is good and righteous!
This is not all.
If you want to know why when you go to something like YouTube and his supporters make a video of the question and answer session after a lecture at some college, and they only show perhaps just one or two people engaging in a discussion with their hero Ben Shapiro, the rest of this article will as well as what we have previously discussed will exemplify why.
You would think that these other college students would have the common sense to bring their own video recorder along to make sure that this doesn’t happen.
Ben Shapiro and others like him are those that choose to distort a key issue regarding the conception of an unborn baby.
They do this by assuming for themselves and you (if you will let them) when such life really begins as if what they say is an indisputable scientific fact rather than opinion.
“Many eggs that are eventually fertilized (it can take as much as several days) never make it as a viable pregnancy, therefore it would be erroneous to assume for those that do, that a woman’s pregnancy as a viable pregancy begins at fertilization of the egg, and after it even becomes a viable pregnancy scientists are still holding various opinions as to when it should represent a living and sentient human life.” (5)
….”fertilization isn’t a clean indicator of anything. The next step is implantation, when the fertilized egg travels down the Fallopian tube and attaches to the mother’s uterus.”(5)
“There’s an incredibly high rate of fertilized eggs that don’t implant’, says Diane Horvath-Cosper, an OB-GYN in Washington, DC. Estimates run from 50 to 80 percent, and even some implanted embryos spontaneously abort. The woman might never know she was pregnant..”(5)
”Assuming that fertilization and implantation all go perfectly, scientists can reasonably disagree about when personhood begins, says Gilbert. An embryologist might say gastrulation, which is when an embryo can no longer divide to form identical twins. A neuroscientist might say when one can measure brainwaves. As a doctor, Horvath-Cosper says, ‘I have come to the conclusion that the pregnant woman gets to decide when it’s a person.’ “(5)
“An estimated 15 to 20 percent of known pregnancies end in miscarriage, the loss of a pregnancy before the 20th week. The actual number is likely higher, because many miscarriages occur very early on, before a woman knows she is pregnant, and may simply seem to be a heavy period on or near schedule.” (6)
So there is great dispute among doctors and scientists as to whether or not actual human life begins at what stage of the potential pregnancy. This is why Ben Shapiro needs to play the game of comparing apples to oranges with a comparison of a fetus who has yet to develop brain activity, with that of a medical patient in a comma as if the medical patient in a comma has never developed well enough to ever have had a brainwave in the first place as well as other such comparisons.(7) Something else to consider with this type of comparison is that an individual in a comma does actually show brain activity,(8) unlike an early stage of fetus development.
As an example, Mr Ben Shapiro may be interested to know that…..
“When doctors recently tested former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s brain with a functional MRI, they found “robust” brain activity when he was shown pictures of his family and heard his son’s voice. A stroke and brain hemorrhage left Sharon in a coma seven years ago.”(8)
This is but one example of why such comparisons in the reality land that many of us enjoy simply don’t work.
Even though someone like Ben Shapiro can choose to have his opinion as to when it’s a living and viable human being, to say that any of this isn’t hotly and understandably debated among medical scientists and doctors alike would be simply (to put it politely) inaccurate. In this article I give two contrary opinions to exemplify this discussion.
This is an example of a contrary opinion as opposed to the one just mentioned:
“The conclusion that human life begins at sperm-egg fusion is uncontested, objective, based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other and on ample scientific evidence (thousands of independent, peer-reviewed publications).”(9)
Of course all sides of the spectrum of opinion tell us that they are of course the most credible, the point here is for you to examine the facts and make the choice of where the better argument is for yourself.
“An organism is defined as ‘(1) a complex structure of interdependent and subordinate elements whose relations and properties are largely determined by their function in the whole and (2) an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent: a living being.’ (Merriam-Webster) This definition stresses the interaction of parts in the context of a coordinated whole as the distinguishing feature of an organism. Organisms are ‘living beings.’ Therefore, another name for a human organism is a ‘human being’; an entity that is a complete human, rather than a part of a human.” (9)
This opinion tells us basically that one should consider an early developed human organism (zygote) as a complete human being at that stage of development, presumably because it has the potential to eventually be one.
How would someone like Ben Shapiro respond?
Perhaps by trying to convince us that if that were not true then someone who doesn’t have all of their limbs and was born without a brain or a heart but was somehow being kept alive with the modern advancement of science, could perhaps rightly be executed while living with their unfortunate circumstance!
Or something similar.
As far as the Merriam Webster definition here is concerned, the second definition clearly doesn’t apply to a Zygote(10), and for the first definition given, I would remind anyone willing to listen that a single cell Amoeba is also an organism, because another word for organism is cell.(11)
So for a bit of objectivity here, they are equating a human organism or cell with a human being!
Although”the “universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types” is mentioned as a general concept, the word “organism” is being used here more specifically and repeatedly because it sounds more impressive for their viewpoint than the word “cell”.
People like Ben Shapiro attempt to consider a zygote the equivalent of a human being because it’s potential is being considered the same as it’s purpose. This is why it is so popular among such to make statements such as how “It’s not snot”, or something of that sort, knowing that when you blow your nose you “abort” many single celled organisms as well.
Let’s examine that shall we?
A single celled zygote as discussed might become a human being although much of the time it doesn’t if there’s a miscarriage. Therefore considering the potential here the same as it’s purpose doesn’t work, although if there is a purpose here, it can be nothing more than it’s potential.
If they should tell you that it should be God’s decision and not yours, you may wish to ask why a God that is the presumably all powerful, all perfect, all knowing, all capable, would allow a zygote to exist in the first place but then on second thought say…. “never mind” if it’s reasoning is so perfect and infallible, unless his creator God created a design that would be imperfect and have the chance of failing? If it’s a matter of design by his creator God deity, or evolution that it might fail, what is it any worse if a woman makes that decision without leaving it up to chance, unless of course, you consider a developing zygote a human being! While you’re at it try telling a chicken farmer that a chicken zygote or egg is actually a chicken!
When he or she laughs you off the farm, you can convince yourself that the chicken farmer is just a liberal who doesn’t understand it all as well as you do!
Wait a minute! I get it! Perhaps it can be said that when their deity God aborts a “baby” it’s the righteous work of the almighty! However, if the woman herself does it…. she’s a baby killer!
This morally two faced behavior should sould very familiar to us all by now.
At this point let us clarify the fact that people like Ben Shapiro would rather insist that it is the state that holds all the cards and takes all the chances of what to do with this potentially viable pregnacy as opposed to the woman having that option.
Mr. Ben Shapiro has given his opinion that a woman who’s life is threatened and may need chemotherapy as an example, her pregnancy being terminated by the chemotherapy would be acceptable. What if she chooses to sacrifice her life and have the baby instead? This could very well be considered suicide. Should she be allowed to commit suicide for the sake of a potentially successful pregnancy? I’ve never heard the answer of “no” from any of these “pro life” people. This is worth noting, because it demonstrates that for them suicide which is a form of murder, for the cause they condone is permissible, but the same woman ending a potentially viable pregnancy is not.
If an abortion is to be considered “murder” then, they have no disagreement with murder as long as it’s the right kind of murder and under certain conditions. Take your own life but not that of your baby they might say, even though there is no certainty at all of whether or not it will eventually be a viable pregancy brought to fruition or not.
I can see a world where should such people achieve the logical conclusion of this kind of talk, where we will also be putting someone in jail for hard time after being convicted of attempted murder because they put a gun to their head and it misfired.
If people like this are successful in stripping a woman of any and all abilities of making any such decisions for herself, I’m sure that will be one of their next steps.
So… who gets to be the one to decide? Thankfully, not people like Ben Shapiro!
Because those of us who would think that we should be concerned about a totalitarian government making decisions for our bodies as they decide which medical evidence should best be considered and in what way, will be letting the woman herself make that decision.
I wish Mr. Ben Shapiro and all of you who have been so kind to spend your valuable time with this, the very best of all good things spiritual.
Bhikkhu Aggacitto a.k.a. Brother Mark:)
Notes and References
All web references are linked and archived for your research convenience.
1. Gen. 6:9-9-17 (K.J.V)
2. Exodus 12:22 -30 (K.J.V.)
4. Malachi 3:6 (K.J.V.) If you would need the Qur’an version of this I would reference (Surah Al-Ikhlas 112, Verses 1-4) “Say: He is Allah, the One; Allah, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; and there is none like unto Him.”