Connect with us

Culture and Religion

Is Erick Erickson Pro-Choice?

Published

on

Is Erick Erickson a pro-choicer and not even know it?

Erick Erickson’s recently penned a controversial op-ed titled, “A Confession: I’m Okay with the Exception for Rape” So the question arises is Erick Erickson still a pro-lifer since he believes abortion is justifiable in the case of rape?

What makes one a pro-lifer versus a pro-choicer? Is a pro-lifer someone that never allows abortion for any reason and a pro-choicer a person that allows it with no restrictions? What is the fundamental and critical element that makes one a pro-lifer versus a pro-choicer?

I appreciate Erick Erickson and the work he does for the conservative movement. He has eloquently taught and clarified what conservativism genuinely is so that millions of Americans can understand the foundational principles on why we believe what we believe.

Since he is such a great teacher of conservatism it bewilders me how his op-ed lacks any foundational reasoning for his position. His argument seems to be solely based on an emotional appeal instead of one based on reasoning and logic.

For instance, one question I had was why did he negate to address the issue of incest.

My question to Erick is, what is your position on incest? Is abortion okay in nonconsensual incest cases and not permissible in consensual incest cases?  If so, why?

Another question I had was, how did you come about with limiting abortion in the case of rape to 20-weeks into the pregnancy? Why 20-weeks and not 19? It seems completely arbitrary.

When speaking on the issue of abortion many questions will arise and it is important for us to discuss them with a clear heart and mind. I understand the emotional component of rape and incest cases, and we should discuss those but before we do we must have an understanding of what pro-life means.

Being pro-life is believing unequivocally that no abortion can occur once life begins, but is this what most people that call themselves pro-lifers really believe?

I believe most people are pro-choice and they don’t even know it. You see the fight isn’t over pro-life versus pro-choice, it’s a fight over the restrictions we are willing to accept.

Why do I say this? Looking at the historical data from Gallup it states that when rape or incest caused the pregnancy, abortion should be legal, stands at 77% to 21% of the time.

In the same report, 45% of people considered themselves pro-life.

You see the problem. How can 45% of respondents think they are pro-life, but only 21% believe it is wrong to abort a baby if caused by rape or incest.

It seems illogical and inconsistent. If you are pro-life, you believe that abortion is taking of an innocent life even under rape and incest.

Now in the rape case, would you argue like Erick Erickson has, that it wasn’t consensual sex, therefore, that it’s okay. In the case of rape, has the child in the womb somehow ceased to be a life?

What if the incestual relationship was consensual would that be murder?

Would it be logical to say that since most people don’t believe a woman should have to carry a baby to term in the case of rape or incest that most people are pro-choice with differing exceptions, and it isn’t about when life begins?

If it is about when is it right to take the life of the innocent for a genuinely pro-life person I believe that can only be when the mother’s life is beyond a shadow of a doubt at risk, and no other choice exists.  At the same time, instead of aborting the baby, we deliver the baby and use all our medical resources to save the life of the child.

As in war, we do everything we can to limit civilian casualties, but when we decide to take an innocent life, we do it to save others. The decision on how you weigh human life is a difficult question.

Do I bomb a hospital or school which is used to store rockets which are used to launch missiles into civilian territories or do we not? These are always difficult question and decisions.

Just like in the case of rape and incest. I’m not this cold-hearted person that can’t imagine the horrors the woman went through. These acts are pure evil. I believe wholeheartedly that the woman is a victim and is not to blame. So why do I think abortion is still wrong in these cases when life has been determined?

The reason is as a pro-lifer, I believe unequivocally that the baby is a human being. The baby is the result of a terrible, unjustifiable act which the child and the mother had no part in it. We have already one victim the mother, by aborting the baby do we put the blame of the rapist on the baby and kill the child and thus create another victim.

You see, that is why I’m pro-life and not pro-choice. I believe that a baby in the womb is a human being and worthy of the same respect, dignity, and protection under the law which all of us enjoy.

Now can there be differences between pro-lifers?

The answer is yes, and I believe two positions exist on when life begins and still be considered pro-life.

The first position is life begins at conception. So when asked when does life begin, in the beginning, is a logical conclusion. Life begins at the beginning, and thus no termination of a pregnancy is permitted.

The second position is when a heartbeat exists. How do we determine if someone is dead? We conclude that by the absence of a heartbeat. How do we determine if someone is alive? They have a heartbeat.

Therefore, it is an intellectually logical position to say that life begins when the heart starts to beat. This position would allow rape, incest, or any other type of termination of pregnancy before a heartbeat exists; any abortion after a heartbeat would be considered pro-choice because you are terminating a life.

Some do take the position of viability instead of heartbeat and thus life is relativistic based on medical technology of the day in my opinion. An article by JD Rucker, “If life begins at conception, there is no justification for pro-life relativism” examines this and is worth a read.

That being said, if Erick Erickson holds that life begins when a heartbeat exists and abortion like a morning after pill which is offered to rape victims immediately is acceptable, then I believe Erick Erickson is still a pro-lifer.

If he believes even the termination of a pregnancy is morally acceptable when a heartbeat exists, then he is not pro-life. He, just like most Americans, he is pro-choice. He’s just a pro-choicer with massive restrictions.

So is Erick Erickson a pro-choicer? The answer to that question is yet to be answered.

I hope that Erick clarifies his position and explains why, in a concise, logical argument his beliefs because his article has raised more questions on his position than answering anything.

Advertisement

0

Culture and Religion

Justin Trudeau’s blackface and the world the left is trying to create

Published

on

Justin Trudeaus blackface and the world the left is trying to create

There’s a reason we’re only hearing now about progressive superhero Justin Trudeau’s blackface incident. The Prime Minister of Canada has been in the public eye for some time, but when he first entered politics, the progressive charge he’s trying to lead hadn’t really picked up the steam it has today. The people weren’t “woke” enough to go after anything and everything from the past that are condemned today.

Now, we’re ready. Any monuments of people from the past who participated in slavery must be taken down and erased. Any mascots that could offend someone are removed and replaced by politically correct variations. And anyone who wore “blackface” in their past, even at times when people were more sane about the use of makeup to pretend to be someone else, must be racists.

They must be. Otherwise, every element of the left’s current worldview is brought into question.

But Trudeau us unlikely to face the same backlash that a conservative in the same situation would face. That’s the narrative that’s quietly being spread – progressives get a pass while conservatives must be prosecuted in the court of public opinion. This is why Virginia Governor Ralph Northam is still in power. It’s why nothing is going to happen to Trudeau the way it would happen if a conservative were caught doing the same thing 18 years ago.

Progressives aren’t trying to create a world that is more understanding of our differences, despite their proclamations otherwise. They’re trying to create a world in which their sensibilities are condemning when a conservative is in the hot seat but forgiving when it’s a progressive facing the same situations. They want to take away guns, as long as they’re given a pass to keep their own firearms. They say words are violence, then they use their own words to attack others while feeling justified in their heinous speech.

It’s a world in with a group proclaiming to be anti-fascist uses their own variation of personal fascism and intimidation to quash the voices of anyone on the right… or even the center.

The leftist’s dream society of socialism and open borders crumbles when the rules they want applied to others are applied to them. This is why Bernie Sanders and other progressive leaders scream about socialism while elevating their own wealthy status through capitalism.

We live in a world that is becoming increasingly opposed to the truth. Even churches are ignoring sound doctrine, replacing the teachings of the Bible with anecdotes to promote their self-help agenda.

When an organization that tries to prevent as many women as possible from becoming a parent can call itself Planned Parenthood, we see where society is heading. When its supporters call opposition to their cause hateful bigots while ignoring the organization’s founder was a self-proclaimed hateful bigot, we know we’re heading in the the wrong direction.

It permeates across all aspects of American society and the leftist’s approach to promoting their agenda. They change words to have different meanings. Today, they don’t want a differentiation between legal and illegal immigrants. They want all of us classified as immigrants so they can say President Trump’s policies are anti-immigrant instead of the reality that his policies work against illegal immigration.

All of this circles back around to the reality that Justin Trudeau will not face the same consequences for his “insensitive” portrayal 18 years ago that a conservative would. Our emerging post-truth society allows the left to see what they want to see.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Shame: Teens recorded fatal knifing of Khaseen Morris instead of helping him

Published

on

Shame Teens recorded fatal knifing of Khaseen Morris instead of helping him

Dozens of Long Island teenagers whipped out their phones an recorded the stabbing of one of their classmates instead of helping him, local police have reported.

Khaseen Morris, 16, was stabbed once in the chest while onlookers recorded the attack. The Oceanside High School senior had supposedly walked a girl home from a party the nigh before and was sought by the girl’s ex-boyfriend. Reports indicate somewhere between 50-70 teens witnessed the attack with many of them recording it instead of intervening.

Morris was transported to a local hospital where he died.

Opinion

Kids do stupid things. They always have. But this recent trend of recording events rather than acting on them stems from a cultural and spiritual disregard for humanity. Events such as these happen outside of reach once mobile devices become the go-to. The response is not to participate or help. It’s to record it. Many teens can’t imagine being at an “event” without having digital record of it occurring.

This shift in mentality is isolated to those who have grown up separated from the real world by the devices they carry constantly. They might forget their keys or wallet when going somewhere, but they never forget their phones. These devices have become a part of us, very much like a technological extension similar to the cyborg technology found in science fiction. But this is willful. Nobody is forced to carry their phones everywhere. We do it willingly.

What does that say about society when someone is murdered right in front of dozens of people whose first reaction is to start recording the attack? How have Americans become so lost that the notion of helping our fellow men, women, and children is an instinct that has been superseded by the need for something to share with friends on social media? It’s sickening.

These kids and their parents should be ashamed.

Quote

“Kids stood there and didn’t help Khaseen. They’d rather video. They videoed his death instead of helping him.” – Detective Lt. Stephen Fitzpatrick

Final Thoughts

Much of American society has become observers, recorders, and posters instead of doers. Young people in particular have grown up with faster reactions to their smartphones than to the world around them. This must change.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Thoughts and prayers are exactly what we need

Published

on

Thoughts and prayers are exactly what we need

One of the more disturbing developments in recent years is the growing attacks on thoughts and prayers in the wake of tragedy. Not only are more and more shouting that thoughts and prayers are “not enough” in the wake of tragedy. Many are also doubling-down on the idea by calling thoughts and prayers an excuse to do nothing.

This assertion not only strikes me as wrong-hearted but fundamentally in ignorance of two honest observations.

Firstly, those who attack thoughts and prayers ignore the necessity to grieve and the resolve that arises in the hearts of those who mourn.

Offering thoughts and prayers provides a message of unity and compassion. It’s a unified message that the victims of tragedy do not stand alone. The time where we offer thoughts and prayers is a time where we can set aside our petty differences and unite in mourning.

Further, it has often been my observation that those who offer heartfelt and fervent thoughts and prayers are the ones which arise from their knees, wipe the tears from their eyes, and provide the most energetic actions towards the support of others.

Mocking thoughts and prayers is mocking the humanity of those who are overcome with the grief of a heart-rending tragedy. It’s to mock the natural response of caring, faithful citizens. Quite honestly, it boils my blood that anyone would mock or belittle a quiet, tearful prayer, a lit candle in the window, or messages on social media that are, for once, positive, supportive, and contemplative.

Secondly, the attitude of mocking the thoughtful and prayerful is yet another example of the degradation of what holds us together as a society. It is a manifestation of our nation’s rotting core of community and brotherhood.

Ultimately, it is a demonstration of the same societal decay that is itself responsible for the lost souls of those who not only perpetrate horrible crimes, like mass shootings, but who resolve to end their problems by ending their life or escape their hollow realities through substance abuse.

We need a more thoughtful and more prayerful society. If we are ever going to get to the bottom of what is causing people to grow so cold in their hearts to kill others or so fallen from hope to kill themselves, we must rediscover the compassion and empathy that can alone save our families, our communities, and our nation from abject dysfunction.

Thoughts and prayers are not keeping us from solutions to the problem. Thought and prayers are the only true beginning to real solutions for the problems that ail our country.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending