Being pro-life and pro-poor

Michael Howard's recent commitment to vote for a more restrictive abortion law illustrates the tendency of Tory politicians to do (a little) more to respect the sanctity of human life. Being pro-life isn't just about being anti-abortion or anti-euthanasia, however. It must be about active compassion, too.

The pro-life movement argues that all lives should be protected. Once some lives are deemed too expensive or too inconvenient to protect, then a fallen society inevitably starts deciding that more ‘substandard’ or ‘chronically-dependent’ lives can also be ended. The relative who wants to inherit the house or the taxpayer fed up with healthcare bills will accelerate those decisions.

In Britain today there are already many lives that are not protected. Unborn children only receive protection once they reach 24 weeks. This protection is removed if the foetus has a disability. Joanna Jepson’s high-profile legal action has shown that a cleft palate can qualify for such a discriminatory termination.

In Holland the right-to-life has been removed from severely disabled newborns (read this). Infanticide is now a medical option. British courts are also looking kindly on ‘mercy killing’ of chronically disabled children.

If we do not define a bright line around all human life, society will start deciding that more and more lives are too expensive or ‘not worth living’. We will be living in the world of ‘Animal Farm’ where ideas of equality are abandoned and some people are ‘more equal than others’ because of their age or mental and physical capacity.

Writing* about the Terri Schiavo case Eric Cohen has said:

"Instead of sympathizing with Terri Schiavo--a disabled woman, abandoned by her husband, seen by many as a burden on society--modern liberalism now sympathizes with Michael Schiavo, a healthy man seeking freedom from the burden of his disabled wife and self-fulfillment in the arms of another."

Today's left-liberals consistently support the abortion of the unborn, the cannibalistic use of embryos for research and laws which would, in effect, impose a duty-to-die on the very old, sick and disabled.

Pro-life conservatives find themselves on the side of the vulnerable but before they get at all smug they would be wise to study A Thin View Of Life* by E J Dionne. He writes:

“People who lack access to health care because they can't afford insurance often die earlier than they have to - with absolutely no national publicity and with no members of Congress rising up at midnight to pass bills on their behalf. What is the point of standing up for life in an individual case but not confronting the cost of choosing life for all who are threatened within the health care system or by their lack of access to it? What does it mean to be pro-life? As far as I can tell, most of those who would keep Schiavo alive favor the death penalty. Most favored allowing the assault weapons ban to expire and oppose other forms of gun control. The president makes an excellent point when he says we "ought to err on the side of life." It's a shame how rarely that principle is put into practice.”

Pro-life conservatives need to match their opposition to abortion with a commitment to create a welfare society that cares for mothers. They need to improve Britain’s free-at-the-point-of-use public services so that every family has access to a good education and healthcare. They need to invest in family structures that provide more children with a good start in life. They need to fund hospice and palliative care that ensures people need not fear a painful dying experience.

How conservatives might combine protection of every human life with compassion for every human life is overviewed in two conservativehome three level briefings - here (humanity) and here (compassion).

This blog post is a summary of a new conservativehome.com memo - available to read here.

Comments

[Todd Lindsay]

The Culture of Death

So this is where the great road to socialism takes us.

It is a descent into the insanity of the culture of death, and it must by all means be resisted. It is the inevitable extension of socialism and elitism that the death of human will must transpire. Those who rebel against God seek to replace Him with themselves. In their own desperate resentful rage against God, they can only take life, never give it. So they establish a cult of death so as to be "God like." It is sad and tragic, for God so loves them that He gave His only begotten Son, that we might live.

Teri must die. The weak must die. The Pope must die.

Yes.

And of course all the babies and anyone who must be "nutrition assisted by artificial means"; such as in the use of a spoon, must be dispatched also.

We will, however, take hope, for our Heavenly Father knows of this suffering, for He suffers it with us...and we shall prevail with the greater power of love and compassion, that those who seek to extinguish our lives might live and be liberated from their suffering. Pity them, for they know not what they do.

[devilstar]

The Schiavo great divide
It's obvious that arguments about Terri Schiavo fall into two main camps.

http://www.donaldsensing.com/2005/03/schiavo-great-divide.html>http://www.donaldsensing.com/2005/03/schiavo-great-divide.html

http://instapundit.com/archives/022046.php>http://instapundit.com/archives/022046.php

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=15186_Todays_Schiavo_Thread&only=yes>http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=15186_Todays_Schiavo_Thread&only=yes

"Characterizing adherents of my position that way certainly came as a surprise to radio host Neal Boortz, whose latest book is entitled, The Terrible Truth About Liberals, and who wrote on Townhall.com that he agrees the tube should have been removed. "

With thanks to :

www.coxandforkum.com

[devilstar]

i.e. This is not a left / right issue.

[Anonymous]

This blog, the remarks about socialism being some kind of death cult and the whole tone of this 'honest' journalism is really disturbing.

There are some sick people out there and I really regret having my brain soiled with your thoughts and opinions.

[Editor]

With regard to the posting from 'Anonymous' this blog doesn't suggest that all socialists are involved in some "kind of death cult".

It is true, however, that the majority of votes for abortion come from the Labour or US Democratic Party ranks. Equally it is a Labour government that is attempting to introduce a form of backdoor euthanasia with its Mental Capacity Bill and it was US Republicans who, in the Terri Schiavo case, urged judges - without success - to "err on the side of life".

I certainly pay tribute to left-wingers like http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/03/30/jackson_joins_schiavo_parents_fight/>Jesse Jackson who did fight to save Mrs Schiavo's life. Unfortunately Rev'd Jackson was an exceptional representative of a left-wing that constantly trumpets its advocacy of vulnerable people but fails to protect the very vulnerable unborn and severely disabled.

[eddie reader]

I think it is really significant that the Conservatives and Republican right are only intersted in human life when it is in the womb - a mere 9 months. Couldn't be to do with the fact that only women have wombs could it?

As for Terry Schiavo - a dreadful case but sorted in the courts, although dirty politicians did try and get in on the act. And by the way, wasn't there a similar case in the UK when Michael Howard was in the last Conservative government to do with a Liverpool fan, Tony Bland, injured at Hillsborough?

The US has over 20% of its children living below the povety line compared with a European average of about 7-8%, needlesss to say that once again the UK is one of the worst European countries with 15% living below the poverty line.

Of course this completely ignores the tens of thousands of children that died in Iraq during the US/UK sanctions period. A situation that caused one UN official to resign and attack the US and UK for acts of genocide.

You only regard human life as sacred when it suits you. You dreadful, dreadful hypocrites.

[Editor]

'Eddie Reader' doesn't seem to have read the posting on which he has poured such excitable language. The whole point of the posting was to acknowledge that conservatives are understanding that being pro-life must mean being much more energetic and committed to a pro-poor message.

'Eddie' is out-of-date. Compassionate conservatism - and its emphasis on school choice, stronger families, faith-based social action and zero tolerance of crime - has been conservatism's attempt to find a way of delivering social justice. And unlike left-wing 'solutions' to poverty, right-wing ideas lift people out of poverty - rather than making them dependent on an ever fatter welfare state bureaucracy.

While the right seeks to ensure its pro-life agenda has a pro-poor character, the vast majority of left-wing politicians (please forgive the slightly outdated right/left labels) show no interest in including the unborn and 'candidates for euthanasia' (the very sick and the very disabled) in society's circle of care.

Only a couple of weeks ago Tony Blair said that he didn't think abortion should be an election issue. Shame on him.

[eddie reader]

Another day, another laugh. Let's shine a light on your distorted world.
'Compassionate Conservatism' is a nice meaningless marketing phrase - just what you would expect from politicians and especially American ones. Using
alliteration (always attractive) and prefixing a negative word, 'Conservatism', with a positive one, 'Compassionate', you end up with a nice phrase that trips lightly off the tongue. Just as meaningless as 'Clever Conservatives' or 'Thoughtful Tories'.
Choice, be it of school, supermarket or sexual partner, requires alternatives. I haven't noticed the Tories talking about changing planning regulations to allow more schools to open so that choice can be satisfied. That I would like. Although I have heard them express their 'compassion' for those who lead a nomadic life and the need for planning change there. With compassion like that a bit of thought is required.
Why faith-based anything? At some point any argument with a religous person is likely to end up with a position dictated by a holy book. End of argument, full stop, period, brick wall. No real chance of imaginative action there. And of course which faith fits all of society? Or doesn't it matter?
Back though to the central point, the obsession the religous right has with the unborn child. The current president needs money to fight his wars, not quite sure what use a Stealth bomber is against guerillas but never mind. So guess what, no to tax rises yes to cuts in Medicare. During the 'compassionate' Reagan era, when the Republicans discovered religion and one the current President aims to emulate, infant mortaility rose in the US such that the US fell from 20th place to 23rd in world rankings. Terrific compassion from such rich people.
Black infants in 1990 were 2.4 times more likely to die than white ones (guess which one is the poorer) in the first year of life. These were almost totally due to poor perinatal care. I'm no NHS fan but it does do perinatal care quite well. Of course, and no Tory wants to hear this, as in so much else want the job done right go to Europe. So I come to the same conclusion - the womb only matters because a woman has one.
So once out of the womb, or even in it, if it costs tax dollars get lost. Better to get down and pray. Only thing is you're not praying to God you're praying to Mammon. As Christ noted the poor will always be with us - they just don't need to be impoverished.

[devilstar]

How irritating this blog is faith based. I had my hopes set high for decent new conservative blog that would be progressive and insightful. Fat chance...

[Editor]

It is not surprising that 'Devilstar' would object to this website's sympathy for faith-based social action.

Not all conservatives are religious but the vast majority will recognise that faith provides most people with a great sense of identity, security, belonging and, above all other things, hope.

Religious people provide the charitable sector with a disproportionate share of its money and volunteers. Churches have led recent campaigns against third world debt. Faith-based schools attract hundreds of thousands of parents who rarely attend a place of worship but want their children to receive a values-based education (and, yes, 'Eddie Reader', the Tories plan significant investment in enlarging school choice).

A conservative sympathy for religious values does not mean support for a theocracy. Conservatives oppose such religious domination in the same way we oppose the kind of secular fundamentalism* that has excluded the likes of Rocco Buttiglione from the EU Commission.

'Devilstar' talks of progress. Well, returning to the theme of this posting, if the liberal idea of progress is the termination of 180,000 unborn UK lives and the starvation to death of the vulnerable Terri Schiavo, it's a perverted of progress.

[devilstar]

So this is about abortion and euthansia isn't it? Which the relgious right vehemently oppose; regardless of circumstances.

Please, please keep Religion out of politics! Why? Because Religion is based on scriptures that are thousands of years old. It is quite amazing the religious think they have the stranglehold on ethics when they're religious priests commit such digsuting acts time and time again.

I am all for values, especially Christian values, of compassion - which is open to interpretation. In my opinion compassion encompasses everything it is to be human. Compassion to end suffering. And if you're so damned religious - then surely Terri (RIP) will be walking with Jesus now?

Seems like the compassionate religious want to keep people alive even though their brains died in 1990 - sacrificing human dignity in the name of ideology. In my opinion this is just pathetic.

I await the oh so rational religious (ahem) amongst you to label me an evil Nazi thats wants to destory the human race or some other male bovine rubbish. Get a grip.

[phil]

Politics & religions should not be mixed together. But society & religion can be - all societies are influenced by religions. Most of western countries are close to christian values, while north africa &V middle east countries are close to muslim values.

In this context, laws must respect the values reflected by a society. So..indirectly, religions must be taken into account when one wants to takle these issues.

Phil
Fast secured loans UK, free financial information

[Guy]

Same old same old. Devilstar and Eddie Reader have a constructed of socio-political principles, most of which (from a theological perspective) involve man usurping God's authority. They demand that these principles are the ones that Christan churches should teach and support, or the churches themselves are not valid. Sadly, there are churches out there who have listened to this "progressive" siren song and are now facing extinction (Anglicans, Methodist and the Unitarianis).

The fact is that abortion and euthanisia are immoral acts, legalized murder. Christians believe that good will ultimately triumph, which is why we all know in our hearts that one day the unborn and the sick WILL be protected. The pro-death lobby also knows this deep down which is why it is so aggressive. Yet, the history of man should teach us that evil will be vanquished. Who would have thought during their heydey that slavery, Communism, Nazism and all the other monstrosites we humans have perpetrated would have been vanquished? Yes Christians hoped and prayed that they would be and their prayers were answered. As they will be with our generation's monstrosity, the murder of the weak and the defenceless.

[Air Jordan shoes]

Education is a progressive discovery of our own ignorance.