Connect with us

Culture and Religion

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



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 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



Culture and Religion

‘Godfather’ star Gianni Russo on Chris ‘Fredo’ Cuomo’s rant



'Godfather' star Gianni Russo on Chris 'Fredo' Cuomo's rant

When CNN anchor Chris Cuomo was filmed delivering an unhinged rant to a heckler at a restaurant, one of the things many people took offense to was his declaration that the term “Fredo” was to Italian-Americans as the “n-word” is to African-Americans. This has been completely debunked since then with guests on his own show using the name to refer to Donald Trump Jr. But that didn’t keep CNN from backing their guy.

TMZ caught up with Gianni Russo, a star from The Godfather who told the reality of the situation from three unique perspectives. First, he said it wasn’t a racial slur and clearly referred to the weaker brother, a perspective he understands as a star of the film. Second, he knows the Cuomo family well and couldn’t believe Chris would have said that. Third, knowing father Mario Cuomo, former governor of New York, leads him to believe the elder Cuomo would have smacked his son had he heard him say what he did.

No real repercussions are expected against Cuomo from his employers at CNN.

Here’s a video from TMZ of Russo’s perspective:

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Do Omar, Tlaib oppose LGBTQ rights like the Palestinian Authority?



Do Omar Tlaib oppose LGBTQ rights like the Palestinian Authority

Representatives Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib want Israel to be boycotted, divested, and sanctioned. They want the Democrats in the House of Representatives to take Congressional action against Israel. They want to drive a wedge between the United States and Israel. Most importantly, they want Israel to no longer exist, replaced by the Palestinian Authority and a “New Palestine.”

Do they also support the Palestinian Authority’s ban on LGBTQ activities? Do they agree with the anti-LGBTQ tenets of the Muslims organizations the Congresswomen support?

In a society in which the media handled things in an unbiased manner, these are questions the press would be asking Omar and Tlaib following the Palestinian Authority’s ban on LGBTQ activities in the West Bank, an area where Tlaib’s grandmother lives and where she petitioned to visit before declining to do so after Israel allowed it.

The press should ask them if they support the Palestinian Authority’s move against LBGTQ individuals:

Palestinian Authority bans LGBTQ activities in West Bank

The Palestinian Authority banned members of the Palestinian Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer (LGBTQ) community from carrying out any activities in the West Bank.

The ban came after the grassroots group Al-Qaws for Sexual & Gender Diversity in Palestinian Society (Arabic for “the bow”), which engages and supports Palestinians who identify as LGBTQ, was planning to hold a gathering for its members in Nablus at the end of the month. The group operates both in the West Bank and among Arab-Israelis.

Both Tlaib and Omar claim to be supportive of LGBTQ rights. But they also have a not-so-subtle attachment to the Palestinian Authority and are actively working to put them in control of all of Israel. Does that mean they would approve of their ban of LGBTQ individuals “from the river to the sea”?

While many in America’s LGBTQ community continue to support and often partner with Islamic groups to help their friends in the Democratic Party, others in the community have spoken out against the anti-LGBTQ policies Muslim majority nations impose on their people. This needs to be addressed by LGBTQ leaders; they can’t (or at least shouldn’t) ignore the plight of the international LGBTQ community for the sake of political expediency.

The Palestinian Authority’s ban on all LGBTQ activities in the West Bank should be a point of contention that Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib need to reconcile. But they won’t. Mainstream media will bury the story and nobody will ask them how they feel.

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

Dan Bongino calls out Antifa for what they really are



Dan Bongino calls out Antifa for what they really are

There’s a strange series of contradictions within the Antifa movement. They claim to be anti-fascist, yet their actions can only be categorized as fascist suppression techniques. They claim to be against racism and misogyny, yet they intimidate any minority or woman who doesn’t agree with them. They pretend to be brave, yet they hide behind masks.

Conservative pundit Dan Bongino knows a thing or two about fighting fascism, stopping bigotry, and being brave. As an outspoken commentator and former Secret Service agent, Bongino has done more to defend this country and promote the proper ideologies we need in order to prevent fascism from ever rearing its ugly head here. He’s also no fan of Antifa.

As he notes, the real agenda of Antifa isn’t anti-fascism. Their name really implies they’re anti-FA – First Amendment. Even as they fight “hate speech,” they do so in ways that are designed to suppress our freedoms to speak. They’re quickly becoming a parody of the old progressive movements, albeit more dangerous today.

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