Author Archives

Rebecca Carlson

Rebecca is the Director of Philosophy & Engagement at Equal Rights Institute. She is a PhD candidate and former teaching assistant in philosophy at the University of Southern California, where she also cofounded and co-led the student pro-life club.

A sought-after speaker, Rebecca frequently delivers lectures all across the country at academic conferences, colleges, churches, high schools, and other events.

Rebecca’s favorite part of her work at USC was teaching both her philosophy students and her pro-life club members how to cultivate mutual, respectful dialogues with people they disagree with. That work has led her to the strong conviction that if we can teach one side of an issue how to approach dialogues well, people on the other side will very often follow suit, so that we really can radically transform the state of public discourse on abortion just by helping the pro-life side to have a better approach: we can create a culture where people on both sides value each other more and perceive the truth more clearly, and ultimately we can change more minds and save more lives. At ERI, Rebecca uses that passion and experience and her philosophical expertise to train and inspire pro-lifers through writing, video content, live speaking and interviews, academic research, and individual consulting for pro-life advocates and politicians.

“You can’t fix a dialogue single-handedly—it takes two good-faith interlocutors to make a good-faith dialogue. But what you can do is make the first move. You can clearly communicate and demonstrate your care for the other person, your genuine desire to understand where they’re coming from, and your openness to considering their point of view, even while they’re not doing the same for you. It takes a little bit of work and a lot of charity, but if you do that, far more often than not the other person will meet you halfway—even people you think of as crazy extremists.”

Rebecca expects to complete her PhD in philosophy at the University of Southern California in May of 2026. Her dissertation is in metaethics; her other areas of research include philosophy of law, epistemology, and philosophy of religion. She has earned an MA in philosophy from USC, as well as a BS in philosophy, summa cum laude, from Hillsdale College, with minors in mathematics and theatre.

Posted on

What We All Have In Common

by

Charlie Kirk was shot and killed yesterday. His wife, Erika, lost her husband yesterday. His two children, both under the age of five, lost their daddy yesterday. Lord, have mercy.

I was on Twitter yesterday between when he was shot and when he was pronounced dead, looking at how people were responding, and I saw exactly what I expected. There were a few left-leaning people saying really ugly things—celebrating that he got shot, or saying that he deserved it. There were some right-leaning people saying ugly things about left-leaning people as a whole—that they’re all celebrating this, that shooting people for their ideas is what the left does. But the vast majority was left-leaning and right-leaning people both saying that nobody deserves to be a victim of political violence, naming Charlie’s and his family’s humanity, and hoping he would survive.

We have real, weighty disagreements with one another in this country—on abortion, and on any number of other extremely important things. It’s important not to minimize or ignore that. But it’s also vitally important to see what we do have in common. If you lean right politically, hear a fellow conservative say: Left-leaning people abhor shooting people for their political beliefs just like we do. That’s not a left thing or a right thing, that’s a human thing.

There are a few crazy people on the left who like political violence, and a few more who say things that sound like they like it because they want to be edgy and get views. There are also a few crazy people on the right who like political violence, and a few more who say things that sound like they like it because they want to be edgy and get views. Don’t let the crazy people pit the rest of us against one another. We have enough things to be divided over without adding this one vital thing that we’re actually on the same side on.

Posted on

Is This Pro-Choice Thought Experiment Cheating?

by

Imagine you wake up one day and find yourself in a hospital bed. You have no idea how you got there, and there are cords running out of your body and into the body of a person who’s lying back to back with you on the bed. You understandably start to freak out a little. A doctor rushes in and explains: “It’s okay, you’re safe. Here’s what happened. That man on the hospital bed with you is a world-famous violinist who has a rare, typically deadly disease. He needs to be hooked up to someone’s kidneys so they can filter his blood, and it turns out you’re the only match in the world. So the Society of Music Lovers, which is obsessed with this guy and really doesn’t want him to die, kidnapped you, brought you here, and hooked you up.”

Estimated reading time: 7 minutes

Posted on

Yes, Abby Johnson, We Do Care About Ending Abortion

by

Abby Johnson said in a recent interview that organizations like ERI (and like most other pro-life organizations) that do want to prosecute doctors who perform abortions but do not want to prosecute women who have abortions must not really want to end abortion. Her exact words were, “I just find it hard anymore to pretend that these groups actually are interested in ending abortion.” She’s wrong. Let’s talk about it.

Estimated reading time: 9 minutes
Posted on

Dear Pro-Choice People, Give Pregnancy Centers a Chance

by

Pro-choice people: “You pro-lifers don’t actually want to help women and babies, you just want to take away abortion rights.”

Pregnancy centers: *exist*

Pro-choice people: “You’re manipulating women!”

On the one hand, that’s a little bit of a caricature—I’ve never seen a conversation quite that blatant. But on the other hand, I do see pro-choice people make both of those comments online a lot, and I get why that’s frustrating to pro-lifers: Pro-choice people say we don’t want to help women, we point out the many, many volunteered hours and donated dollars the pro-life movement pours into helping women, and then pro-choice people reject that obvious proof that we want to help women by saying our help is actually just a guise for manipulation. It can come across as frustrating, ad hoc, or even duplicitous.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes
Posted on

Why Didn’t I Endorse Trump In My Last Article?

by

Last week, I wrote an article about the election (always a fraught thing to do). I argued that who pro-lifers should vote for is an important question and that not all answers are equally correct, but I also argued that how we think of and treat fellow pro-lifers who vote differently from us is even more important.

The responses I got were pretty much exactly what I expected. Some people loved the article, some people engaged thoughtfully with particular claims it made, and some people I lost completely as soon as I said that it’s possible to both be pro-life and vote for Harris.

If that’s you, I have immense empathy with where you’re coming from. I think Harris is very, very terrible—both her personal character and her policies, especially her policy goals on abortion, which are to make it federally illegal for states to impose restrictions on abortion at any time, for any reason. If she’s elected and she gets the congressional support she needs to succeed at passing that law, it will cost the lives of thousands and thousands of babies, including babies late enough in pregnancy that they can certainly feel pain and will die in agony. I’m not voting for Harris, and I think voting for Harris is the wrong choice.

Estimated reading time: 9 minutes