NAMO TASSA BHAGAVATO ARAHATO SAMMASAMBUDDHASSA
NAMO TASSA BHAGAVATO ARAHATO SAMMASAMBUDDHASSA
NAMO TASSA 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 in general, 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 be Ben Shapiro’s type of hypocrisy, as it is the hypocrisy most blatant and common of all the Abrahmic lineage of religion you see, as he often freely discusses himself being an Orthodox Jew, he then of course believes in the murdering God of Abraham. This is of course very strong language but understand that I use it to make a point. If we are to discuss an issue like this then we must discuss it in an honest and unvarnished fashion. There is a major difference between the theological discussion and the medical one. First I will proceed with the theological discussion and then I will follow with the medical conversation of this issue.
The Theological Discussion
The argument that is most given by any of the Abrahmic religion types when you question the morality of a God that can freely have the choice to murder whomever 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 and without question, then people like you, need to check your reality.
The fact of the matter is that if Planned Parenthood and all such clinics and hospitals started holding religious services, people like Mr. Ben Shapiro and his ilk would all be quickly screwed out of their anti abortion argument!
“Your God kills people and our Planned Parenthood deity tells us to perform abortions”
What would they say?
“We believe that abortion is murder but that our killing deity is more righteous than yours?”
“That’s why our killing deity can murder whomever he wants, whenever he wants and it’s his holy righteousness at work, but your abortion deity is a false God who doesn’t have that same holy license!”
Yes, as ridiculous as it would all sound, that’s pretty much what they would be left with.
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 innocent babies were undoubtedly MURDERED, just to name but two examples(2), these anti abortionists 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 God deity 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? Should I be called a naughty sounding name or two for making an issue of this? Should any of this mean that this type of an issue shouldn’t be discussed? Not when the anti abortionist call others “murderers” and consider them to be “morally depraved” as “baby killers” while they talk about an issue like abortion.
Again, not when your a public figure who freely makes mention of their religious beliefs while at the table as a commentator, who will then be known to take such a stance on an issue like abortion.
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 other anti abortionist 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!
Their only justification for this is to understand that in the final analysis, this for them becomes an argument of might makes right.
Their God they believe can murder whomever he feels like because he supposedly has that almighty moral right to do so…..and should of course, never be held accountable! After all, they believe he is the almighty! Who should ever actually find him accountable?
Every day, mothers and father’s all over the world teach their children the opposite, that it’s not whether you win or lose but how you play the game, and while they’re at it they teach their children that might doesn’t make right. It’s sad to think that their God deity can’t even raise itself to the level of what human mother’s and father’s typically know to teach their own children.
Those of us with a clear mind know that the best teacher teaches by example. The do as I say but not as I do approach, when people are taught that this God of theirs is the pinnacle of all that is pure and good, on a practical and meaningful level denies the utter poverty and moral bankruptcy of such an approach. If a father shot drugs and killed people all the time but then told his children “Do as I say but not as I do” what do you think the outcome would be? Would they have the best chance of not doing as their father figure has examplified? Of course not. So therefore why would a loving and righteous God not care to have a concern for the best learning avantage of those who give such devotion? Is simply because he doesn’t have to, really sound good enough for the thinking person? What’s that? He doesn’t care nor have to care what the thinking person thinks? As someone who would like to consider himself a thinking person, capable of critical thinking ability, I know I do!
It is like the sadistic and murdering bully who has cultured his own exclusive V.I.P. “People Of The Book” fan club.
In response, none of this would seem to matter to most of them, as they are left stuttering in some way some sort of sad affidavit of their faith.
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.
The Medical Conversation
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 (9).
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 one opinion that would consider abortion to be murder:
“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).”(10)
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.” (10)
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 for some type of perceived crime while living with their unfortunate circumstance!
Or perhaps something similar.
As far as the Merriam Webster definition here is concerned, the second definition clearly doesn’t apply to a Zygote(11), 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.(12)
So for a bit of objectivity here, they are equating a human organism or human 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 by way of sounding more encompassing 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, as an example if there’s a miscarriage. Therefore considering the potential here the same as it’s purpose will only work for acknowledging it’s potential. The potential for a viable pregnancy.
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 gets through laughing 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 usually rather insist that it is the state that holds the cards and takes 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 if you wish to sacrifice it for that of the baby, 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…unlike that of the mother.
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 (Old Testament as the Christian knows it or TANAKA for the Jewish faith)
2. Exodus 12:22 -23 (Old Testament as the Christian knows it or TANAKA for the Jewish faith)
3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GecSo18TWE or
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.”
5. https://www.wired.com/2015/10/science-cant-say-babys-life-begins/ or
6. https://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/health-info/miscarriage-in-the-first-trimester/ or
7. https://www.dailywire.com/news/9768/ben-shapiro-destroys-abortion-argument-no-more-amanda-prestigiacomo or
8. https://www.seeker.com/how-active-is-the-brain-in-a-coma-1766443114.html or
10. https://lozierinstitute.org/a-scientific-view-of-when-life-begins/ or
11. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/zygote or
12. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amoeba or