Ben Shapiro Shows How You Win a Pro-Life Argument

What happened?

A “controversial” pro-life speaker and a college student last week debated some typical pro-abortion arguments. Glenn and Stu analyzed the clip on radio Monday.

Who was speaking?

Ben Shapiro, a conservative writer and commentator who is editor-in-chief of the Daily Wire, spoke at the University of California at Berkeley on Thursday. UC Berkeley prepared for his appearance by working with local law enforcement and spending a shocking $600,000 on security measures.

During a Q&A session, an unnamed student asked Shapiro why a human fetus in the first trimester has “moral value.” While Shapiro was protested by some students on campus, the Q&A exchange about abortion was respectful on both sides.

What was Shapiro’s response?

Shapiro used basic biology for the foundation of his answer. A fetus is human because science (and common sense) says so. If you think we shouldn’t kill humans, why doesn’t a fetus have value?

“A first-trimester fetus has moral value because whether you consider it a potential human life or a full-on human life, it has more value than just a cluster of cells,” Shapiro said. “If left to its natural processes, it will grow into a baby.”

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: So I want to talk about Ben Shapiro.

STU: Actually, you mentioned you saw Jennifer Garner in real life. And I'd rather hear about that. No offense, Ben. I'm sure -- you know, Ben is a good guy. We like Ben.

GLENN: There's a lot to be said about the Jennifer Garner thing. There's a lot. And I'm not going to share it with you.

STU: Okay.

GLENN: Ben Shapiro, he was out at Berkeley. And I want you to know that people -- people who listen will -- some, will say, oh, gee, you know -- you just kept cowering in a corner. No, uh-uh. Not cowering in a corner. Speak the truth. And speak it with wisdom and facts and without hyperbole. And without name-calling.

STU: Because I think a lot of people translate what you're saying a lot of times as cower in the corner and just, you know, go along to get along.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: That's not really what you're saying.

GLENN: No, no.

Your corner -- what corner? Do you belong in a corner? I don't belong in a corner. My corner is my country. I'm going to speak out and I'm going to come out for my country. I'm not going to cower in a corner.

STU: How about very divisive issues? Because sometimes --

GLENN: May I? I know you're very focused on Jennifer Garner.

STU: Can we talk about that? Because a lot of people are divided about her. And then listen about what Ben Shapiro is saying.

GLENN: This is Ben Shapiro at Berkeley. He is taking on a -- a person on the left about abortion, and listen to the way he handles this.

VOICE: So my question was about abortion, and I just wanted to know why exactly you think a first-trimester fetus has moral value.

BEN: Okay. So a first-trimester fetus has moral value because whether you consider it a potential human life or a full-on human life, it has more value than just a cluster of cells. If left to its natural processes, it will grow into a baby. So the real question is: Where do you draw the line? So are you going to draw the line at the heartbeat? Because it's very hard to draw the line at the heartbeat. There are people who are adults who are alive because of a pacemaker. And they need some sort of outside force, generating their heartbeat.

okay. Are you going to do it based on brain function? Okay. Well, what about people who are in a coma? Should we just kill them?

The problem is any time you draw any line other than the inception of the child, you end up drawing a false line that can also be applied to people who are adults.

So either human life has intrinsic value or it doesn't. I think we both agree that adult human life has intrinsic value. Can we start from that premise?

VOICE: I believe that sentients has -- is what gives something moral value, not necessarily -- not necessarily being a human alone.

BEN: Okay. So when you're asleep, can I stab you?

(laughter)

VOICE: I'm still considered sentient when I'm asleep.

BEN: Okay. If you are a coma from which you can awake, can I stab you?

VOICE: Well, then, no. I guess not.

BEN: I'm glad you answered that. Because I have no interest in actually murdering you.

VOICE: But that's still potential sentience, and it's still a potential --

BEN: I agree. It has potential sentience. You know what else has potential sentience? Being a fetus.

GLENN: Oh, man. See, there's nothing better.

STU: Yeah.

VOICE: If I'm in a coma and I'm not like doing anything to anyone, I'm not causing any issues amongst the world -- whereas, an unwanted child may or may not be a burden to people.

BEN: There are lots of people's parents who are unwanted. Right? Or a bunch of college students.

The problem is, that now -- so now you're shifting the argument. Right?

Before you were making the argument based on the intrinsic value of a life based on sentience, and now you're talking about the level of burden that somebody presents as a separate moral argument.

Okay. I don't believe that you being a burden on somebody is justification for them killing you, as a general rule.

VOICE: I'll leave it at that, but I appreciate you.

BEN: Thanks.

GLENN: I'll leave it at that. Yeah, you probably -- you probably should.

STU: You should probably leave the state after that.

(chuckling)

That's amazing. Because how you could -- first of all, you could go to their last argument there. A burden? You know, look a lot of people -- when you have someone who is hooked up to machines in a coma, what a -- it's an incredible burden on a family.

GLENN: And the state.

STU: But because you care about human life, you still try to fight through it. And the state, right. Cost. There's a million things you could argue on that. That is embarrassing.

And the reason -- you could fault the guy for making the point the way he did. The problem is, there's no value in the point. It's not that he made the point poorly, it's that the point is ridiculous.

GLENN: So, but here is the thing: Being able to have that dialogue -- and that's, quite honestly, why people want to shut other people up. And when you don't have the -- when you don't have the intellectual firepower of Ben Shapiro, then you get down to -- well, that's -- your side did it first.

And there's just no -- there's nothing to be gained there. Nothing to be gained.

STU: There is a moment where you go into like the gym at your local Y. And, you know, you're going into -- a bit of a pickup team. It's like, eh, I got one other guy I'm just going to bring in. And just, LeBron James walks in. That is the Ben Shapiro moment.

GLENN: Yeah.

He is probably our William F. Buckley. He and Jonah Goldberg are probably the William F. Buckley of our generation.

STU: It's one of those things, when you have one of those guys on your side, you're never losing an argument.

GLENN: Yeah.

Trump’s secret war in the Caribbean EXPOSED — It’s not about drugs

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The president’s moves in Venezuela, Guyana, and Colombia aren’t about drugs. They’re about re-establishing America’s sovereignty across the Western Hemisphere.

For decades, we’ve been told America’s wars are about drugs, democracy, or “defending freedom.” But look closer at what’s unfolding off the coast of Venezuela, and you’ll see something far more strategic taking shape. Donald Trump’s so-called drug war isn’t about fentanyl or cocaine. It’s about control — and a rebirth of American sovereignty.

The aim of Trump’s ‘drug war’ is to keep the hemisphere’s oil, minerals, and manufacturing within the Western family and out of Beijing’s hands.

The president understands something the foreign policy class forgot long ago: The world doesn’t respect apologies. It respects strength.

While the global elites in Davos tout the Great Reset, Trump is building something entirely different — a new architecture of power based on regional independence, not global dependence. His quiet campaign in the Western Hemisphere may one day be remembered as the second Monroe Doctrine.

Venezuela sits at the center of it all. It holds the world’s largest crude oil reserves — oil perfectly suited for America’s Gulf refineries. For years, China and Russia have treated Venezuela like a pawn on their chessboard, offering predatory loans in exchange for control of those resources. The result has been a corrupt, communist state sitting in our own back yard. For too long, Washington shrugged. Not any more.The naval exercises in the Caribbean, the sanctions, the patrols — they’re not about drug smugglers. They’re about evicting China from our hemisphere.

Trump is using the old “drug war” playbook to wage a new kind of war — an economic and strategic one — without firing a shot at our actual enemies. The goal is simple: Keep the hemisphere’s oil, minerals, and manufacturing within the Western family and out of Beijing’s hands.

Beyond Venezuela

Just east of Venezuela lies Guyana, a country most Americans couldn’t find on a map a year ago. Then ExxonMobil struck oil, and suddenly Guyana became the newest front in a quiet geopolitical contest. Washington is helping defend those offshore platforms, build radar systems, and secure undersea cables — not for charity, but for strategy. Control energy, data, and shipping lanes, and you control the future.

Moreover, Colombia — a country once defined by cartels — is now positioned as the hinge between two oceans and two continents. It guards the Panama Canal and sits atop rare-earth minerals every modern economy needs. Decades of American presence there weren’t just about cocaine interdiction; they were about maintaining leverage over the arteries of global trade. Trump sees that clearly.

PEDRO MATTEY / Contributor | Getty Images

All of these recent news items — from the military drills in the Caribbean to the trade negotiations — reflect a new vision of American power. Not global policing. Not endless nation-building. It’s about strategic sovereignty.

It’s the same philosophy driving Trump’s approach to NATO, the Middle East, and Asia. We’ll stand with you — but you’ll stand on your own two feet. The days of American taxpayers funding global security while our own borders collapse are over.

Trump’s Monroe Doctrine

Critics will call it “isolationism.” It isn’t. It’s realism. It’s recognizing that America’s strength comes not from fighting other people’s wars but from securing our own energy, our own supply lines, our own hemisphere. The first Monroe Doctrine warned foreign powers to stay out of the Americas. The second one — Trump’s — says we’ll defend them, but we’ll no longer be their bank or their babysitter.

Historians may one day mark this moment as the start of a new era — when America stopped apologizing for its own interests and started rebuilding its sovereignty, one barrel, one chip, and one border at a time.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Antifa isn’t “leaderless” — It’s an organized machine of violence

Jeff J Mitchell / Staff | Getty Images

The mob rises where men of courage fall silent. The lesson from Portland, Chicago, and other blue cities is simple: Appeasing radicals doesn’t buy peace — it only rents humiliation.

Parts of America, like Portland and Chicago, now resemble occupied territory. Progressive city governments have surrendered control to street militias, leaving citizens, journalists, and even federal officers to face violent anarchists without protection.

Take Portland, where Antifa has terrorized the city for more than 100 consecutive nights. Federal officers trying to keep order face nightly assaults while local officials do nothing. Independent journalists, such as Nick Sortor, have even been arrested for documenting the chaos. Sortor and Blaze News reporter Julio Rosas later testified at the White House about Antifa’s violence — testimony that corporate media outlets buried.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened.

Chicago offers the same grim picture. Federal agents have been stalked, ambushed, and denied backup from local police while under siege from mobs. Calls for help went unanswered, putting lives in danger. This is more than disorder; it is open defiance of federal authority and a violation of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

A history of violence

For years, the legacy media and left-wing think tanks have portrayed Antifa as “decentralized” and “leaderless.” The opposite is true. Antifa is organized, disciplined, and well-funded. Groups like Rose City Antifa in Oregon, the Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club in Texas, and Jane’s Revenge operate as coordinated street militias. Legal fronts such as the National Lawyers Guild provide protection, while crowdfunding networks and international supporters funnel money directly to the movement.

The claim that Antifa lacks structure is a convenient myth — one that’s cost Americans dearly.

History reminds us what happens when mobs go unchecked. The French Revolution, Weimar Germany, Mao’s Red Guards — every one began with chaos on the streets. But it wasn’t random. Today’s radicals follow the same playbook: Exploit disorder, intimidate opponents, and seize moral power while the state looks away.

Dismember the dragon

The Trump administration’s decision to designate Antifa a domestic terrorist organization was long overdue. The label finally acknowledged what citizens already knew: Antifa functions as a militant enterprise, recruiting and radicalizing youth for coordinated violence nationwide.

But naming the threat isn’t enough. The movement’s financiers, organizers, and enablers must also face justice. Every dollar that funds Antifa’s destruction should be traced, seized, and exposed.

AFP Contributor / Contributor | Getty Images

This fight transcends party lines. It’s not about left versus right; it’s about civilization versus anarchy. When politicians and judges excuse or ignore mob violence, they imperil the republic itself. Americans must reject silence and cowardice while street militias operate with impunity.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened. The violence in Portland and Chicago is deliberate, not spontaneous. If America fails to confront it decisively, the price won’t just be broken cities — it will be the erosion of the republic itself.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

URGENT: Supreme Court case could redefine religious liberty

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

The state is effectively silencing professionals who dare speak truths about gender and sexuality, redefining faith-guided speech as illegal.

This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.

The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.

The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.

Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?

One‑sided freedom

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.

Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.

Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?

If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.

Censored belief

I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.

I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.

I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.

And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.

Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.

Faith on trial

In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.

That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The real test

No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.

Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?

If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.

The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Get ready for sparks to fly. For the first time in years, Glenn will come face-to-face with Megyn Kelly — and this time, he’s the one in the hot seat. On October 25, 2025, at Dickies Arena in Fort Worth, Texas, Glenn joins Megyn on her “Megyn Kelly Live Tour” for a no-holds-barred conversation that promises laughs, surprises, and maybe even a few uncomfortable questions.

What will happen when two of America’s sharpest voices collide under the spotlight? Will Glenn finally reveal the major announcement he’s been teasing on the radio for weeks? You’ll have to be there to find out.

This promises to be more than just an interview — it’s a live showdown packed with wit, honesty, and the kind of energy you can only feel if you are in the room. Tickets are selling fast, so don’t miss your chance to see Glenn like you’ve never seen him before.

Get your tickets NOW at www.MegynKelly.com before they’re gone!