The Pro Choice argument is very simple and requires neither anger nor compassion. It is purely rational.
30-40 percent of conceptions result in miscarriage, most of which happens in the first trimester. Therefore it is a waste of police resources to confirm wether an abortion took place or a regular miscarriage took place if the pregnancy ended in the first trimester. Which is why in most secular countries around the world abortion in the first trimester is legal without restrictions.
There are valid medical reasons to terminate pregnancies after the 1st trimester, such as ectopic pregnancy, severe genetic defects and other complications that could put the mothers life at risk if the pregnancy is not terminated. The case of Savita Halappanavar in Ireland should be example enough. There are other medical conditions where a pregnancy could put a mothers life at risk. It also is inhumane to force a mother through pregnancy if testing finds that the foetus is not viable outside the womb or there is a high likelihood that the foetus will die in utero (certain genetic defects carry that risk). Another medical factor is the inherent risk to the mother if she is too young, there is a disconnect of several years between onset of menses and ability to carry a pregnancy without significant health risk.
It is inhumane to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term that was the result of rape and/or incest. Yes, would it be preferable if she would come forward prior to foetal viability, of course, but given how bad we are at prosecuting perpetrators, we should cut women a break here as well. It is a matter of proportional response. If we could ensure that perpetrators are captured, immediately, with prejudice and thus minimizing the repercussions for the affected girls/women, an argument could be made that unless they decide on this quickly it shouldn't be allowed. As that is not realistic without at minimum violating the standard of "in dubio pro reo" it is also not realistic to expect rape victims to come forward immediately at first opportunity.
The argument of the pro-life side in many cases suffers from equal cognitive dissonance. If you are pro-life you should always be pro-life. Yet the majority of the pro-life movement has no problem with the death penalty and equally doesn't particularly care about what happens to the infants after they are born. If you are so concerned about them, shouldn't you also be invested in ensuring that they have the best possible chance of becoming productive members of society? Yet many pro-lifers, Shapiro included, rail against any social services, public healthcare, public education etc..
I don’t think anyone’s pro-life argument is valid bc it is only about human life. It’s completely illogical to value human life over any other life. The loss of one human is an unimaginable tragedy- but people feel NOTHING for the BILLIONS of animals that are tortured to death at the hands of humans. Animals are experimented on, hunted, raised on factory farms where they literally can’t turn around and are fed feed that’s mostly sawdust and chicken feces, raised on factory fur farms in the same conditions then skinned ALIVE and left to die in agony, kept in zoos and gawked at as they slowly die in a jail they did nothing to be imprisoned in, their bodies are humiliated- stuffed and hung in houses as DECORATION instead of decaying and returning to the earth, their DNA structures are played with like LEGO pieces for our own amusement... the list of atrocities goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on... and NO ONE CARES. I live in a personal hell where I am surrounded by the torture and pain of trillions of living things, and to add salt to the wound, I’m viewed as “crazy” for feeling compassion for all of these beings whose lives are infinitely harder and sadder than almost any human’s. I feel like I’m screaming into an abyss.
I couldn't even read the rest of the article and I'm sure I missed some good points. But I quickly felt where the author was going and thought the author is wrong. The conversation Ben was having was not about rape, it was about abortion. I'm sure Ben is compassionate towards rape victims. But are we to use that compassion towards the victim as an excuse to override our compassion for the unborn child. Now I'm not saying I want to force women to keep a child from a rape but rather saying you still need to understand you are killing a baby. Whether or not you have compassion for the child is for the individual to decide. It's takes a brave person to do that and many women have and the child grew up fine. I'll bet the child will thank their mother for their bravery when they're old enough to understand. Ben is going straight to the "abortion" part of the argument cause that's the topic. If someone wants to talk about rape then talk about rape. Once the conversation of rape is over let's talk about the unborn child now, because this unborn child is the most innocent of all in the situation. Ignorance seems to be bliss. The child doesn't even have a voice yet to say "please don't kill me, I'm not my father". Again, not saying this is an easy thing because I know being raped is probably extremely traumatic, just don't forget about the third party that will one day say " I love you mommy " and " thanks for keeping me.... you're very brave". Who knew....a gift from someone else's sin. With this all being said I want every woman to know I won't judge them if they do get an abortion from a rape, but don't let my lack of judgement make you feel more comfortable with getting one. You need to judge your own self and live with it.
Sorry but emotional appeals don't work. Now I aplaud Shapiro for being sympathetic towards the victim but he's dead wrong how to deal with it. Im pro-choice till fourth month mark due to a lot of neurological systems finish developing at the time. The mother should complete access to her biology and resource... the fetus or baby is drain her of it for its own gain. Due to thsee circumstances... it has no more rights than a brain dead patient. Facts don't care about your feelings and frankly neither do I.
Finishing your comment with "facts don't care about your feelings and FRANKLY NEITHER DO I" isn't going to win your debate. It's meant to be inflammatory because you're mad at my view point. Calm down for a second and try to think about how sombre women view their unborn child at 1 month, 2 months, and up to 4 months...... if they want to keep it!!! The unborn child completely has different values to different mother's depending on wether they want to keep it or not. So if you kill a pregnant woman can you be charged with double homicide? Maybe that depends on whether she wants to keep it or not. No no no we need straight guidelines the judge would say. The problem is everyone has there own definition of defining when it's a life. Human embryo testing has to destroy them at 14 days because that's when it starts to develop the beginning stages of a spine. Radiolab did a segment on it. Listen to it. The funny thing is I've never met a person that had an abortion that didn't feel bad about it. People seem to have this innate sense to be able to envision the "what if I kept it" picture of the baby's face.... and it becomes real to them. They choose to ignore it and its somewhat a narcissistic attitude about it. I feel pretty much all cases of abortion, except ill fated deformities, are the result of the woman (and man in cases) are thinking only of themselves. It's natural!! And you say emotional appeals don't work, clearly you have emotions after four months. Have an intellectual conversation with me. Let's go.
Well that is fair point on the mom's subjective view. But their view dosen't change what the baby or fetus is. Before 4 mounths. All the nerons, pain receptors, spinal cord, and even brain parts don't even finish till that mark, these all are important foe being able to host conciouncess. Before 4 mounths the fetus has almost no diffrences then a brain dead patient. And due to this. I don't think it should be charge as a double homicide if the mother is killed before the month of gestation. These circumstances also make me have more care for the mother then the baby/fetus. The fetus is connected to the mother, leaching all of her natural resources and having a physical strain in their body, so I have no care that if it's human or alive. Of course a lot of woman say they regret their abortions but that's not a valid reason for another mother to not get an abortion. Every human regrets their decisions, thats a nature problem.
fyi, when i bring up rape, it's because i know i won't change all prolifers' minds, but if i can convince some of them to make an exception for rape, that's already a huge win. (although on a state level it's often mitigated by the distrust towards the victims, and by the delays in legal proceedings that can make it impossible to have an abortion before the cutoff date)
I wonder if anyone here have thought through logically the conclusion if abortion was outlawed with an exception for rape only. How would the law know the difference between a rape conception and a non-rape conception? their is no difference, the development of the embryo is the same. The other problem with rape exception is now you will have women making false rape claims to be able to get an abortion, so how do you differiantiate between a legitimate or false claim? The police now going to be tied up investigating false rape claims which will certainly rise due to such change in the law is that what we want now, the police going on wild goose chases and charging people with rape that are innocent, due to false claims? I wonder if the pro-life people have thought through the unintended consequences of rape exception. Unfortunately such as human nature, their will be legitimately raped women that will end up being denied an abortion and be forced to stay pregnant because of them fearing of making a claim or unwilling to make a report due to shame and embarrasment. How many men will be falsely accused of rape so that the person they had sex with can get an abortion. I think pro-lifers don't realize that by passing such laws you create a bigger problem now with law enforcement and men being unfairly charged for rape is that worth it? I say not, i say leave it the way it is, women can choose to carry to term a rape pregnancy or not and women can choose to have an abortion without having to make false rape reports.
I wonder if the pro-life people have thought through the unintended consequences of rape exception. Gladys, they never think ANYTHING through, beyond their dual desires for a dead woman, and a dancing baby. Case in point, I've recently seen pro-lifers sobbing about the State of Colorado, which has reduced abortion by 42%. You would think that pro-lifers would be urging all states to do as Colorado is doing. Except of course, as I could have told you, they are NOT. Naturally. Since Colorado's strategy is to prevent pregnancies in the first place, it ruins the pro-life desire for a dead woman and a dancing baby. For a long time, they were ever-so quiet about Colorado. Now, however, they've managed to find grounds to COMPLAIN about Colorado. How? Well it turns out that part of what Colorado is doing is giving out IUD's. The pro-lifers are making sobbing noises about this, on the grounds that IUD's prevent a fertilized egg, a 'real baby for sure' from implanting. Waaaah! Of course, they haven't thought this particular sob through, beyond their desire for a dead woman and a dancing baby. Because it's obvious to anyone with a brain larger than a mushroom, that if a woman doesn't get her free/reduced cost IUD from Colorado and gets pregnant as a result, her line of thinking is NOT going to be: "Gee, I got this unwanted pregnancy. This will pretty much ruin my life, but I guess I'll pop it out anyways so that the pro-lifers can have their 2 minute fetal fantasy." Rather, she's going to go out and abort it, only now it will be LATER instead of sooner (with the IUD preventing a 2-day old zygote from implanting). Why this is preferable, is beyond me, other than that it will probably provide pro-lifers with more material for sobs.
I write as a hobby. I also have a degree in biology. Nature is not 'cute'. Just as an example, go out some spring and look at a mother duck with 10 fuzzy baby ducklings following her. On average, 9 will be dead within a year from now (city ducks will sometimes do better, due to fewer predators). We humans have used our intelligence to make a nice cozy living space for ourselves, but we cannot entirely make unpleasant biological necessities go away. For instance, we cannot pop out endless streams of babies. At some point we will get starvation, plague, or something else that puts a stop to it. And even if we keep our population as a species within sustainable levels, we STILL cannot try to frantically ensure the survival of 100% of all embryos/infants at all costs, regardless of the circumstances. Some of them will have to be deliberately chosen to die. There are reasons for that, and the reasons are not going to change that anytime soon. About the best world we can hope for is to increase the use and effectiveness of birth control, and diagnose problems in the embryo as early as possible.
Exactly. It burns my blood when sillya$$ legislators write spurious bills to prevent women from accessing long-term effective reversible birth control. A prime example is John Becker, an evangelist Rethug in Ohio, who wrote an anti-abortion bill to include banning IUDs from health insurance coverage. Becker wailed that IUDs MIGHT prevent a fertilized egg from implanting. This blatantly demonstrates that anti-choicers don't care about preventing pregnancies--they want women pregnant and popping out the babies for whatever weird reasons of their own. "Becker infamously addressed his lack of knowledge about science thusly": "This is just a personal view. I’m not a medical doctor." http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/06/05/hb_351_in_ohio_john_becker_s_bill_would_ban_insurance_coverage_of_abortion.html
IUDs are great for some. Thanks to an IUD my mom was able to avoid getting pregnant for 12 years after she had me. Which was a good thing since my parents were poor and my father was an alcoholic. My mom was greatful for the IU D, it literally made my mom's difficult life bearable, and not constantly popping out kids.
But they are horrible for the fetal fantasizers. They WANT unwanted pregnancies to happen. They are sobbing right now over the 'precious real baby for sure zygotes that can't even implant because the mean old state of Colorado is handing out IUD's. Then, if the IUD's aren't handed out, they will switch their sobs to: "Why are women getting abortions so late? Why couldn't they have used IUD's?"
Can you imagine all of the bogus rape reports that are going to be filed in the case of abortion being outlawed with a rape exception? It would be like during the Prohibition days, so many people applied to become Rabbi's so they can get an exemption and be able to buy alcohol, since Rabbi's and clergy got an exemption from the law. I laughed when they said their was an increase of 600% of applications to become Rabbi's, how ironic, so many people becoming Rabbi's during that time.
Yeah, not to mention that there was a deliberate loophole for the rich in the prohibition laws, in which it was legal to own alcohol 'as long as it was bottled before prohibition'. The pro-lifers keep sobbing that just as soon as we get an abortion law passed, within just a few months, they are really, really sure that legislators will close the 'quick trip to Mexico or Canada' loophole for the rich. Never happened before, but the loophole for the rich will be closed right away this time. For sure. Oh yeah. And we also won't go to infanticide, like they did in Romania, either. Because reasons. If you believe either of those things, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.
The author is right on about how horrible Ben's approach is. I was anti-abortion , but after hearing Ben (who has taught me many things, and whom I admire in many ways) present the pro-life stance this way, and say raped women should be forced to have babies if they are impregnated, I was so disgusted that I re-evaluated my beliefs on abortion. Now I'm pro-choice. So yeah. If you want to make more people pro-choice, argue like Ben does.
yep i agree. I think the idea of forcing any woman to gestate against her will, rape or not, is disgusting PERIOD, to me if we do not have our bodily rights, then we have nothing. We need to stay vigilant of these pro-lifers that want to take our rights away.
yeah same here, my family is religious so i grew up thinking abortion is wrong. i started having doubts when i first heard the joke that "in this case a blowjob is cannibalism". then as i became a feminist i realized how i'm not better than other women, and that being "smart" or making the right decisions is no guarantee to avoid rape. it sure doesn't help the prolife movement that a lot of the people are also ready to blame the victim, give the attacker the benefit of doubt, ban contraception (and promote abstinence in ways that makes teens think all contraception is ineffective and they may as well skip it), and overall minimize the effort that goes into sustaining a pregnancy. (wrt the recent child vs 1000 embryos debate, i've seen one answer that was that "a better analogy is if not saving the embryos takes a deliberate effort" - um no, while an abortion takes effort [mostly because prolifers don't want you to have it], carrying a pregnancy to term is not easy as pie either, and even if you intend to give up the baby for adoption you'll still feel pressed to make your best effort, both because it's your blood and also for the sake of the people who will take care of the baby)
Yes, it's completely disgusting. Some of them refuse to believe me when i say I used to be on their side.... they can't comprehend that advocating for things such as forcing raped women to remain pregnant will alienate people from their cause and open people's eyes to what this is really all about.
i also used to be pro-life or if you want to call anti-abortion, though not very passionately, i changed my mind a few years ago, after seeing the attacks on contraception. The gall that anyone would tell a pregnant person that they have to remain pregnant against their will is beyond me to comprehend, it infuriates me to no end.
I understand being morally opposed to abortion on a personal level - I can’t see myself ever getting one (unless I was raped -that's a totally different ballgame) and I think it is morally wrong in many if not most cases. But the idea of forcing women, at point of gov’t gun, to endure a pregnancy and then childbirth, especially by restricting access to early term abortion where all that’s involved is an unthinking bundle of cells, seems to be the definition of tyranny. Most of the people who would like to do this are conservative and anti big gov’t /pro-individual freedom and rights too, so I just find it crazy that they refuse to even acknowledge how invasive and fascistic it would be to force women to remain pregnant against their will.
Now me personally i have no issue with early term abortions and don't find them morally problematic as i would 2nd trimester and on, it still does not negate the issue of individual rights though, that a woman has to refuse to be a host. If it were me i would have on as early as possible 4-6 weeks the most.
yes, i have gone rounds with many pro-lifers on this issue of enforcing pregnancy and childbirth, I don't really think they have thought it through well and how intrusive the government would have to be to enforce that. They honestly don't think that the intrusiveness is problem. All they think about is the embryo/fetus, they cannot see beyond it. They keep saying that all they care about is "saving lives", but they really don't understand what that entails or they seem kind of blind to it. They sometimes just act like the embryo/fetus is floating around somewhere, they completely forget the woman doing the gestating, she is invisible to them. Abortion being morally wrong or not is irrelevent to the concept of individual rights. Forcing gestation by the state is a violation of individual rights, no matter which way you try to paint it is. They are simplistic thinkers they think that by saying "they want to save lives" that makes it alright to force gestation and childbirth on someone, it does not. This is not like saving a drowning child or a dog being abused, this is ENFORCING gestation to sustain a life of another for 9 months, and the woman having to endure the trauma of childbirth and any all health changes, it is akin to slavery in my opinion to force someone to do.
". . . debate, not dialogue. A speaker’s primary responsibility in that setting is to convince the audience, not the person with whom he is arguing." This is a distinction that I haven't heard made before by you or your brother, with potentially big ramifications. Isn't it often hard to draw the line? Once a dialogue has one bystander, might you not decide that debate rules should apply?
We've definitely talked about it before, but probably on the Equipped for Life podcast more than anywhere else. In an outreach context where a group of people are around, there are certainly two things going on, convincing the person, and convincing the group. (And to a lesser extent this is true when there are just one or two bystanders.) This is still pretty different than a public debate though, because in the outreach context you described you still have people observing a dialogue, so I think we should continue to generally act the way we do in a one-on-one dialogue. I wouldn't use the moves Shapiro used in an outreach setting even if there were bystanders. It's still too different. It would understandably look like this is the way we act in a one-on-one conversation. A case where bystanders does have an effect is the case where we're dealing with the person who is biting every bullet. For example, the hardcore moral relativist who won't concede that rape is objectively wrong. There's an example on our blog where I used the fact that there was another person there in an attempt to make it more likely that the person would concede this important point: https://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/effectively-responding-to-moral-relativism/
I had seen that video and had gone along with Shapiro's implication that "the pessimistic interpretation" of the rape question was necessarily correct. Thanks for pointing out the other possible interpretations. “'What moral premise could justify a moderate pro-life position that opposes most abortion but allows for it in the case of rape?' . . . very clever." Apart from your main point about "not trying to trick," do you mean that the difficulty of providing such a moral premise shows the untenability of such a with-exceptions pro-life position in as convincing a way as your third-trimester argument shows the untenability of a with-exceptions bodily-rights position? (I don't think that it is very difficult to provide the required moral premise.)
No, that's not my point. In 2008 neither I nor any of the other students could think of a good solution, and I think it's an effective argument to use against people that don't understand bodily rights arguments well. I think holding a rape exception can be coherent (though inadvisable) if your position is that the only good response to the violinist is what we call the responsibility objection. If you believe that all of the other objections fail, then what you're left with is a principled reason to oppose all abortions except those that come from rape. While it is coherent, I think it is an unwise position to take, because there are other glaring, gigantic, clearly morally relevant problems with the violinist.
Thanks. I don't think that the violinist is the strongest way to frame the bodily-rights argument (even Thomson seems to have offered it only in order to open her essay with a demonstration that the right to life that personhood may entail doesn't necessarily include a right to be kept alive by another person's body – and not as her complete argument for abortion rights), but anyway you have answered my question about the point of your story about the professors, thanks. Regarding "morally relevant problems" with even the best bodily-rights arguments: such bodily-rights arguments always depend on analogies, and the problems that I have always seen identified have been the disanalogies between those analogies and actual pregnancy. I have never seen any other kind of problem identified. But I think it is also possible, if not to demolish those bodily-rights arguments, then at least to put a big dent in them, simply by http://www.noterminationwithoutrepresentation.org/bodily-rights-and-a-better-idea/, then applying that analysis to pregnancy without reference to any other situation, real or imaginary, said to be analogous with pregnancy.
Facts don't care about your feelings and frankly neither do I.
These circumstances also make me have more care for the mother then the baby/fetus. The fetus is connected to the mother, leaching all of her natural resources and having a physical strain in their body, so I have no care that if it's human or alive.
Of course a lot of woman say they regret their abortions but that's not a valid reason for another mother to not get an abortion. Every human regrets their decisions, thats a nature problem.
The police now going to be tied up investigating false rape claims which will certainly rise due to such change in the law is that what we want now, the police going on wild goose chases and charging people with rape that are innocent, due to false claims?
I wonder if the pro-life people have thought through the unintended consequences of rape exception. Unfortunately such as human nature, their will be legitimately raped women that will end up being denied an abortion and be forced to stay pregnant because of them fearing of making a claim or unwilling to make a report due to shame and embarrasment. How many men will be falsely accused of rape so that the person they had sex with can get an abortion.
I think pro-lifers don't realize that by passing such laws you create a bigger problem now with law enforcement and men being unfairly charged for rape is that worth it?
I say not, i say leave it the way it is, women can choose to carry to term a rape pregnancy or not and women can choose to have an abortion without having to make false rape reports.
Gladys, they never think ANYTHING through, beyond their dual desires for a dead woman, and a dancing baby. Case in point, I've recently seen pro-lifers sobbing about the State of Colorado, which has reduced abortion by 42%. You would think that pro-lifers would be urging all states to do as Colorado is doing. Except of course, as I could have told you, they are NOT. Naturally. Since Colorado's strategy is to prevent pregnancies in the first place, it ruins the pro-life desire for a dead woman and a dancing baby. For a long time, they were ever-so quiet about Colorado. Now, however, they've managed to find grounds to COMPLAIN about Colorado.
How? Well it turns out that part of what Colorado is doing is giving out IUD's. The pro-lifers are making sobbing noises about this, on the grounds that IUD's prevent a fertilized egg, a 'real baby for sure' from implanting. Waaaah!
Of course, they haven't thought this particular sob through, beyond their desire for a dead woman and a dancing baby. Because it's obvious to anyone with a brain larger than a mushroom, that if a woman doesn't get her free/reduced cost IUD from Colorado and gets pregnant as a result, her line of thinking is NOT going to be:
"Gee, I got this unwanted pregnancy. This will pretty much ruin my life, but I guess I'll pop it out anyways so that the pro-lifers can have their 2 minute fetal fantasy."
Rather, she's going to go out and abort it, only now it will be LATER instead of sooner (with the IUD preventing a 2-day old zygote from implanting). Why this is preferable, is beyond me, other than that it will probably provide pro-lifers with more material for sobs.
It burns my blood when sillya$$ legislators write spurious bills to prevent women from accessing long-term effective reversible birth control. A prime example is John Becker, an evangelist Rethug in Ohio, who wrote an anti-abortion bill to include banning IUDs from health insurance coverage. Becker wailed that IUDs MIGHT prevent a fertilized egg from implanting. This blatantly demonstrates that anti-choicers don't care about preventing pregnancies--they want women pregnant and popping out the babies for whatever weird reasons of their own.
"Becker infamously addressed his lack of knowledge about science thusly": "This is just a personal view. I’m not a medical doctor."
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/06/05/hb_351_in_ohio_john_becker_s_bill_would_ban_insurance_coverage_of_abortion.html
The pro-lifers keep sobbing that just as soon as we get an abortion law passed, within just a few months, they are really, really sure that legislators will close the 'quick trip to Mexico or Canada' loophole for the rich. Never happened before, but the loophole for the rich will be closed right away this time. For sure.
Oh yeah. And we also won't go to infanticide, like they did in Romania, either. Because reasons.
If you believe either of those things, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.
I was anti-abortion , but after hearing Ben (who has taught me many things, and whom I admire in many ways) present the pro-life stance this way, and say raped women should be forced to have babies if they are impregnated, I was so disgusted that I re-evaluated my beliefs on abortion. Now I'm pro-choice.
So yeah. If you want to make more people pro-choice, argue like Ben does.
then as i became a feminist i realized how i'm not better than other women, and that being "smart" or making the right decisions is no guarantee to avoid rape. it sure doesn't help the prolife movement that a lot of the people are also ready to blame the victim, give the attacker the benefit of doubt, ban contraception (and promote abstinence in ways that makes teens think all contraception is ineffective and they may as well skip it), and overall minimize the effort that goes into sustaining a pregnancy.
(wrt the recent child vs 1000 embryos debate, i've seen one answer that was that "a better analogy is if not saving the embryos takes a deliberate effort" - um no, while an abortion takes effort [mostly because prolifers don't want you to have it], carrying a pregnancy to term is not easy as pie either, and even if you intend to give up the baby for adoption you'll still feel pressed to make your best effort, both because it's your blood and also for the sake of the people who will take care of the baby)
Most of the people who would like to do this are conservative and anti big gov’t /pro-individual freedom and rights too, so I just find it crazy that they refuse to even acknowledge how invasive and fascistic it would be to force women to remain pregnant against their will.
Abortion being morally wrong or not is irrelevent to the concept of individual rights. Forcing gestation by the state is a violation of individual rights, no matter which way you try to paint it is.
They are simplistic thinkers they think that by saying "they want to save lives" that makes it alright to force gestation and childbirth on someone, it does not. This is not like saving a drowning child or a dog being abused, this is ENFORCING gestation to sustain a life of another for 9 months, and the woman having to endure the trauma of childbirth and any all health changes, it is akin to slavery in my opinion to force someone to do.
This is a distinction that I haven't heard made before by you or your brother, with potentially big ramifications. Isn't it often hard to draw the line? Once a dialogue has one bystander, might you not decide that debate rules should apply?
In an outreach context where a group of people are around, there are certainly two things going on, convincing the person, and convincing the group. (And to a lesser extent this is true when there are just one or two bystanders.) This is still pretty different than a public debate though, because in the outreach context you described you still have people observing a dialogue, so I think we should continue to generally act the way we do in a one-on-one dialogue. I wouldn't use the moves Shapiro used in an outreach setting even if there were bystanders. It's still too different. It would understandably look like this is the way we act in a one-on-one conversation.
A case where bystanders does have an effect is the case where we're dealing with the person who is biting every bullet. For example, the hardcore moral relativist who won't concede that rape is objectively wrong. There's an example on our blog where I used the fact that there was another person there in an attempt to make it more likely that the person would concede this important point: https://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/effectively-responding-to-moral-relativism/
“'What moral premise could justify a moderate pro-life position that opposes most abortion but allows for it in the case of rape?' . . . very clever."
Apart from your main point about "not trying to trick," do you mean that the difficulty of providing such a moral premise shows the untenability of such a with-exceptions pro-life position in as convincing a way as your third-trimester argument shows the untenability of a with-exceptions bodily-rights position? (I don't think that it is very difficult to provide the required moral premise.)
I think holding a rape exception can be coherent (though inadvisable) if your position is that the only good response to the violinist is what we call the responsibility objection. If you believe that all of the other objections fail, then what you're left with is a principled reason to oppose all abortions except those that come from rape. While it is coherent, I think it is an unwise position to take, because there are other glaring, gigantic, clearly morally relevant problems with the violinist.
Regarding "morally relevant problems" with even the best bodily-rights arguments: such bodily-rights arguments always depend on analogies, and the problems that I have always seen identified have been the disanalogies between those analogies and actual pregnancy. I have never seen any other kind of problem identified. But I think it is also possible, if not to demolish those bodily-rights arguments, then at least to put a big dent in them, simply by http://www.noterminationwithoutrepresentation.org/bodily-rights-and-a-better-idea/, then applying that analysis to pregnancy without reference to any other situation, real or imaginary, said to be analogous with pregnancy.