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.