Loaded Question Fallacy or valid questioning?

I don't detect anything ambiguous or deceptive in either of Mr. Neil's questions or statements. It is merely couching a frame of reference in the form of a dialogue or conversation. For it to be a loaded question it would require a veiled assertion disguised with an innocent question. There is no guile here, he just flat out describes Mr. Shapiro's views on abortion as extreme. It's a reasonable opinion.

The second question doesn't set off any alarm bells either. It reads like a reasonably structured opinion/question. It also doesn't matter if the journalist is an opinion writer or an objective journalist. That could possibly be a red herring distraction because it evades a direct answer by deflecting back on the questioner.

Now, if it was restructured in another way it could be a way of begging the question. (petitio principii)

"With your extreme views on abortion, why are you so intent on returning us to the dark ages?"

Logical Form:

Claim X assumes X is true.

Therefore, claim X is true.

Let's look at the first statement:

Some of the ideas popular in your side of politics would seem to take us back to the dark ages. (opinion) Such as the new abortion laws in Georgia that you are in favor of (claim) eg. that a woman who miscarries could get 30 years (claim), and a Georgian woman who travels to another state for an abortion procedure could get 10 years (claim). These are Extreme hard Policies. (opinion)

We have 2 claims and 2 opinions. Ben can disagree with the opinions and challenge the claims if they are factually incorrect. But no fallacies.

What I am asking you is why a bill barring abortion when a woman has just been pregnant for six weeks is not a return to the dark ages?

This question implies that the bill in question does in fact bar abortion when a woman has just been pregnant for six weeks. If this is factually incorrect, it should be pointed out. If it is factually correct, then it should be answered. This question would be similar to "why is terminating a life of a fetus not murder?"

My answer is Science; life begins at conception.

This is just factually incorrect. Life begins before conception. Sperm is alive, eggs are alive. But perhaps he meant "human life" begins at conception or even the "life of a new entity" which might be scientifically correct, depending on how life is defined. This fact, however, is not an answer to the question (or not a good one in my opinion). I don't know what the laws were regarding abortion in the dark ages so I wouldn't know how to answer this question. I don't think Andrew or Ben do either, so perhaps "the dark ages" was meant metaphorically to mean "times when things really sucked."

Ben is wrong for the simple fact that his claim

My answer is Science; life begins at conception.

is false. Science is still trying to figure out the definition of life, and scientists themselves say that each field is biased towards their own, so we may never know. In fact, based on some definitions there are crystals that would be alive, while viruses (Which are considered to be "Not alive" with so much certainty, Med School tests have a dreaded trick question "How do viruses live?", which is just a trap to find good students, because Viruses are NOT alive by medical definition) would be dead, even when they share some behaviours with live organisms. Science is still deliberating on what Life in general presents itself as, how in the world would Ben and his google searches know, if he missed the above facts?

If you need proof on what i said about the crystals and deliberation on life, i have it.