Connect with us

Culture and Religion

If life begins at conception, there is no justification for pro-life relativism

Published

on

If life begins at conception there is no justification for pro-life relativism

The last couple of days have been very challenging within the conservative community on social media. There seems to be as many debates between conservatives and Christians over whether or not the Alabama abortion bill went too far as there are between conservatives and progressives about the abortion issue in general.

There are few simple answers. In fact, I can only think of two. Before I get to those, here’s a Twitter thread I made. Sometimes I tweet knowing people will like and share it. This falls under the category of being too controversial for even my pro-life friends to share freely.

For those without Twitter, here’s the text version:

relativism is not about the moral choice or compassion for women who are raped. It is an unacceptable stance for many because it betrays the most important question: “Does the government recognize personhood the moment a human is conceived?”

I literally weep for women who are victims of rape. It is the most heinous crime short of murder (barely) because it fundamentally changes at least 1 person’s life for the sake of sexual perversion and misogynistic control. Life in jail should be on the table for violent rapists.

We must protect women better and we must support them through their pregnancies in all circumstance, especially when there are factors such as birth defects or when the mother was the victim of rape. As Americans, we must do better by those who need help.

It is incumbent on us to recognize and share the fact that pro-life laws are not an attack on a woman’s right but an acknowledgement that once they are pregnant, there is a new and separate life that must be protected as well. It is more than a clump of cells. It’s a unique life.

I appreciate the emotional response by fellow conservatives and Christians who are swayed away from believing a human life must be protected even when conceived in rape, burdened by birth defects, or any other detrimental circumstance, but we need to remember the real question…

If we believe the miracle of life begins when a human is conceived, then we must defend that life as a fellow creation of God regardless of the circumstances. Then, we must do everything in our power to aid the mother through the challenges she and her child will face.

I’ve been watching conservatives bend over backwards trying to either not sound “too religious” or to justify relativism by saying one of three things about the Alabama law:

  1. “It’s too extreme for political reasons.” – This argument is easy to fall into accepting until we look at the facts. The stated goals are to overturn Roe v. Wade, reduce/eliminate abortions in America, or both. To do this politically, we need a law to get to the Supreme Court that works as a foil to the pro-abortion laws being passed in other states. The Alabama law does more to open both doors – overturning Roe v Wade and reducing/eliminating abortions – than any other.
  2. “I can’t justify making rape victims suffer more.” – Of all the arguments, this is the one that is the most moral. It’s very understandable to want to protect women and help them to put their lives back together following the horrific violence of rape. We want to help them move on, and carrying a reminder of their awful experience for nine months can be a separate trauma. I don’t dispute that. But it doesn’t change the premise that human life must be preserved. One must negate that premise in order to justify allowing the exception for moral reasons.
  3. “We need to take steps towards reducing abortion, not a giant leap.” – It’s similar to the first argument, but more devious. I can dismiss the first justification because it’s out of ignorance and I can understand the second justification because it’s an emotion choice, but to place the debate in terms of political strategy is disingenuous because it’s demonstrably false. We have not been able to ease our way towards eliminating abortion in this country even though there have been dozens of attempts to do so.

This does come down to a religious argument, and as much as I wish it were just framed within a Christian argument, it’s not. Regardless of one’s religion, the decision must be made about whether or not there’s a human being inside of the mother at the moment of conception. If not, when does that “clump of cells” become a human with the Natural Right to live? Or, if you prefer, the Constitutional right to live? Some say at birth. Others say at viability. The moment the heartbeat can be detected has been a popular marker. And despite the protestations of nearly everyone, it’s still a religious issue.

There is no “scientific consensus” on the matter because there cannot be. In fact, it’s embarrassingly ignorant to claim a “scientific consensus” on the issue because science cannot answer the question of when life (or, for legal purposes, personhood) begins. Scientists can be gathered to form consensuses, but even then the question is not one within their skillset to answer. This is a religious question regardless of whether one’s religion is Christian, Muslim, or atheistic humanist. It comes down to belief systems and worldviews. The laws of the land are rarely decided by science and this clearly isn’t such an instance.

The first simple answer to the question is the commonly accepted notion that legal life begins at a point after conception. As noted above, that could be birth, viability, or heartbeat.  But let’s simplify it even further by breaking down the pro-abortion side’s real argument. They don’t really care when the baby can officially be called a human life. Their focus is on making sure a mother has ample time to decide she doesn’t want the baby all the way up to birth (or even shortly after birth). This is why any restriction that a majority of the population agrees is reasonable, such as viability between 20-24 weeks of development, is still unacceptable to the pro-abortion crowd.

The second simple answer is that personhood begins at conception. Many claim to believe this but still push for moral exceptions. But argument for exceptions such as rape, incest, and genetic deformities cannot jibe with a belief that personhood begins at conception unless one parses out degrees of personhood. Is a person conceived in rape less of a person than one conceived through consensual sex? Does someone with Down Syndrome have diminished rights compared to someone without genetic defect? Nobody who claims to be pro-life believes either of these things. But their compassion is their justification for disregarding the premise of personhood beginning at conception.

True compassion cannot accept relativism in the pro-life argument. It just doesn’t fit, even at an emotional level. This is why I urge those making the argument for exceptions to reconsider why they’re pro-life in the first place. If it’s a belief in life at conception, then it’s time to run their logic through a a filter of clarity. They may finally see the fallacy in their arguments.

Some may ask whether the life of the mother is a worthy exception for abortions. While I’m torn to some extent because of how this can be utilized as a loophole, the purest examples of this argument is the fatal choice: if the baby is delivered, the mother will die. Any situation in which such a choice must be made is difficult, but that choice should, in my humble opinion, continue to be allowed. It’s not a decision to kill. It’s a decision regarding who should be allowed to live.

If there’s one silver lining to all the debating that is taking place around abortion, it’s that we get to examine our beliefs on a more personal level in open conversation. This is beneficial to the pro-life argument because truth has an illuminating effect.

Boost This Post

Get this story in front of tens of thousands of patriots who need to see it. For every $30 you donate here, this story will be broadcast to an addition 7000 Americans or more. If you’d prefer to use PayPal, please email me at jdrucker@reagan.com and let me know which post you want boosted after you donate through PayPal.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Advertisement
Click to comment

Culture and Religion

Ami Horowitz: What is the Muslim Brotherhood?

Published

on

Ami Horowitz What is the Muslim Brotherhood

For an organization that is so wide-reaching, so prominent, and so recognizable across the globe, very little is known about the Muslim Brotherhood by most Americans. They’re an 800-lb gorilla disguised as a harmless puppy that may occasionally bark or growl but can’t do any real damage. The more we learn about their decades of influence and planning in the United States, the scarier this puppy becomes.

Ami Horowitz did an incredible investigative piece on the Muslim Brotherhood, released yesterday by PragerU.

“The US has been a target of the Brotherhood for many years,” Horowitz reported. “Many of its members founded some of this country’s largest Islamic organizations, including CAIR, the Islamic Society of North America, the Muslim Student Association, Students for Justice in Palestine, the Muslim American Society, among many others.”

But if you ask any of these groups about their affiliation with the Muslim Brotherhood, they claim there is absolutely no connection. This seems to be a universally told lie.

According to Horowitz, “While some of these groups deny current involvement with the Muslim Brotherhood, many of the same founders are still involved with these organizations and they seem to share the same philosophical underpinnings of the Brotherhood.”

They are working on multiple fronts inside the United States to subvert our culture, governance, and freedoms. To do this, they don’t just act against us. Sometimes, they actually use our own money in the process.

“The Holy Land Foundation was once the largest Islamic charity in the United States. It’s supposed organizational mission was to fund humanitarian programs for Arabs in the Palestinian territories. In reality, it was a front organization for the Muslim Brotherhood to help finance Hamas as terrorist activities. In 2009, the founders of the organization were given sentences of between 15 and 65 years in prison for funneling 12 million dollars to Hamas. Among the unindicted co-conspirators listed by the prosecution was a who’s who of major U.S. Islamic leadership including CAIR, the Islamic Society of North America, the North Islamic Trust Fund, and many others.”

They aren’t just raising money. They’re teaching people, converting them. One of their biggest targets are American jails. In prison, the Muslim Brotherhood literally has a captive audience. It is here they’re able to find people willing to act violently and who are ripe for becoming devoted members to the cause of both Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood itself.

What Ami Horowitz shows us in this 15-minute PragerU video should be considered nothing short of required watching for all patriotic Americans. You may not be concerned about the Muslim Brotherhood now, but you should be.

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

Imagine the Left being completely honest

Published

on

By

Imagine the Left being completely honest

The Left has to hide its core ‘value’ of forced wealth redistribution in order to survive, but imagine if the whole truth came out.

No one would support the Left’s socialistic slavery if it were truthful about its ideology of forced wealth redistribution. They will, however admit to some half-truths using the sin of omission to keep the rest under wraps. This is a look at what it would be like if they were completely honest about their socialist national agenda.

After all, these are people who disguise who they are with deliberately false labels. They can talk all they want about being ‘progressive’ or ‘Liberal’, but it’s all backward thinking with the antithesis of Liberty in having ‘the pedagogy of the paredón’ [execution wall].

Leftists weren’t socialists until suddenly they were.

It is really astounding that the Left expects their words to be taken at face value when their history has always been one of lies. For years they solemnly denied that they were socialists, even though the dictionary and their national agenda told a different story. Everyone was supposed to ignore their obvious denial of reality.

Then in a rare flash of honesty, they admitted what had been obvious for decades: They were socialists.

Lost in the accolades of their coming out of the red closet was the fact that they had been lying about their core values for years. It was positively Orwellian in how they switched without the slightest hint of guilt over their abject deception.

Leftist weren’t demanding gun confiscation while demanding gun confiscation.

Leftists certainly seem to have a talent for being able to lie while the truth is in front of everyone else. They used to parrot the lie that ‘No one is talking about gun confiscation’ while absolutely demanding gun confiscation.

It was a bold-faced lie designed to assuage the objections to the Left’s demands for Intergalactic Background Checks or gun registration. We’re not supposed to worry our pretty little heads about the implications of these measures because this just wasn’t in the cards. It was an obvious lie, but the Left demanded that we accept it as the truth along with many others.

These days it’s to the point that the mere rumour of the possibility of a shooting or a particularly cutting remark to a Leftist politician is enough to bring forth this demand. Nevertheless, Leftists will still try to parrot this obvious lie, expecting it to be taken at face value.

Happy talk half-truths.

The national socialist Left would like to be lauded for those rare occasions when they are truly honest. In most cases it’s only part of the story with ‘happy talk’ about free health care, free college, free food, free housing, leaving out the justification over how other people are morally obligated to fund all the freebies.

That is by design, because those discussions delve into the messier aspects of socialism. The false promises, the forcible wealth redistribution, the oppression when the false promises become manifest, the rounding up of dissidents into gulags and concentration camps, the pedagogy of the paredón [execution wall].

The full implications of Leftist half-truths reveals why they keep them hidden, only emphasising the positive aspects of their socialist national agenda.

‘From each according to his abilities’ has to be done at gunpoint.

It should be no surprise that a man who advocated the ideas of a parasitical ideology would have stolen them from the ancient dialogs of someone else. Good old Karl Marx was aware of these ancient texts since he commented on them in his writings. Many others were experimenting – and failing with socialism well before he wrote his ‘manifesto’.

However, the man did phrase the essence of forced wealth redistribution with his:

‘From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.’    Karl Marx

Leftists love to talk up the second part of that little ditty with the promise of all kinds of free stuff while leaving out how the ‘From each’ is supposed to be implemented. This is because other people’s money has to be taken by force.

Bernie Sanders gloated about cancelling student debt and making Wall Street pay for it, without mentioning why they are morally obligated to fund that freebie. He also failed to mention the economic implications of stealing of $1.6 trillion from some people simply because he wants to buy votes.

Where the Leftists truly honest, they would make sure everyone knows some people will be forced to pay for all of the ‘free’ goodies. Most people don’t have to worry about being at the wrong end of government gun, but they do have to worry about that taking of other people’s money sinking the economy.

The full implications of Medicare-for-All.

If there is one thing Leftists love more than being called Liberal, its being lauded for generously spending other people’s money. How they think that money is theirs to take can only be attributed to the distorted mentality of the collectivist mindset.

As reported by JD Rucker Bernie Sanders confirmed the ‘all’ in Medicare-for-All includes illegal immigrants Let’s complete the ‘logic’ of the left in this case and other entitlement issues.

The truthful implications of this are that he believes that everyone has a claim on the property of those who may happen to earn or have more than others. That government is more than a mere protectors of basic human rights, but should be the conduit by which wealth is equally distributed to all in the world.

Never mind that the prospect of free health care, free college, free food, free housing will have the entire world-beating down our ‘door’.

The Left wants everyone to be able to vote to steal other people’s money.

As in the previous example, we all knew what the Left wanted. It was a case of the Left finally coming out and admitting the truth. As reported on Townhall: Caught Red Handed: Despite Their Protests, Democrats Want Illegals To Vote. This is not just a case of the government obtaining the consent of the governed, it is one of the Left flooding the country with illegal invaders that will vote to have other people’s money redistributed to them. Couple this with the promise of free stuff for all who can come in over the border and the people who pay the bills will have lost control of their own country. It will be the end result of every democracy that will be inherently unstable.

If they can accomplish this, the national socialist left will have succeeded in taking the most stable and functioning systems of government and perverting it to one where the minority will be tyrannised by the majority. It will inevitably disintegrate as fewer people work to have their earnings stolen by others, shifting the burden to fewer and fewer until the whole system collapses.

Open borders and reparations for past sins.

Our final two examples – in more ways than one – we have Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi asking ‘What’s The Point?’ on the issue of enforcing Immigration Laws In U.S. as reported in the Daily Wire.

Then there is the story reported on the website Twitchy of an opinion piece from the New York Times that openly admits that the illegal invasion and reparations movement are meant to be penance for ‘our’ past sins.

The national Socialist-Left doesn’t see any point in borders or Enforcing Immigration Laws and that we must pay some form of penance for our past sins. Never mind that the people who committed these sins have long since passed or that the people benefiting weren’t the original victims. No, to those on the Left, we have committed the unpardonable crime of being successful and having the best system of government ever conceived.

The Takeaway.

The full extent of the truth of what the Left has admitted is almost too monstrous to contemplate. They have no qualms about forcibly taking property in order to buy votes and loyalty. They are perfectly willing to hand out goodies to anyone who will vote for them. Finally, they don’t believe in sovereignty and see the illegal invasion and reparations as a way of the innocent of today to pay for the collective sins of the past.

Thus whatever they do to the country to attain power for themselves is perfectly legitimate in their minds. It doesn’t matter to them if it leads to our destruction because we probably deserve it. It used to be said that certain foreign entities hated us for our freedom. In looking at the implications of the rare instances when the Left has been a little honest, it would seem they agree with that sentiment.

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

Demise of LifeWay: Changing times or because they peddled heresy? 

Published

on

Demise of LifeWay Changing times or because they peddled heresy

It’s not the best of times to be a book store in 2019. Amazon crushed much of the competition. Still, Lifeway remained the retail branch of the Southern Baptist Convention until its announced closure of all of its stores back in March. The brand will continue to operate online. The SBC is embattled with confusion and the influence of Social Justice Gospel at the celebrity pastor level. That confusion, created by various personalities, has not been lost on LifeWay. So the question of the day: is LifeWay consolidating because of changing times or because they peddled heresy?

It should come as a surprise to no one that LifeWay has peddled an enormous amount of heresy. I wrote, back in May, posing the question: why the Prosperity Gospel is still popular? In that column, I noted that Lifeway sells the Prosperity Gospel. But the Prosperity Gospel is far from the only heresy that they profited from. If not for Lifeway, would Heaven Tourism books have reached popularity enough to have made movies from it? Then, there’s mysticism because postmodernism is alive and well.

Pulpit and Pen has danced on the grave of LifeWay as they become a hollow seed of what they once were, claiming sole credit for their demise for being a primary influencer in the #the15 movement. The movement was launched against LifeWay by comments construed as elitist towards its customers in 2014 by Ed Stezter in response to concerns over John Piper’s cozy comments to the Pope. Evidently, a lot of congregations have turned their backs on Lifeway ever since. Pulpit and Pen notes, in their rejoicing, how the financial woes for LifeWay began in 2014 according to their financial presentation. A lot of churches used to consider themselves “LifeWay only” churches in terms of materials used, explains Randy White of First Baptist Church of Katy, Texas explained. He also expressed his displeasure with the heresy on their shelves in his decision to move his congregation away from them.

Amazon is powerful, but so is having a quality brand. People, especially in churches, will contribute to businesses that support their values. But LifeWay stopped doing that, instead selling any book that will bring in revenue regardless of their responsibility to the Lord as a faith-based entity. When enough people saw through “faith-based” branding of LifeWay, the company was left to the mercy of Amazon.

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