Conservative = Pro-Life?  

Bill Post wrote this on FB recently:

The question: if life as in "pro life", more important politically than say "health care"? My argument will always be that one's stance on abortion tells me all that I need to know about one's heart. If it isn't THE most fundamental, important issue to your heart, I will then wonder about everything else. How can one be a "conservative" and not have "life" as one's most important political, spiritual and personal issue? www.billpost.us

As way of disclaimer, I've only met Bill once and I never listen to radio of any kind - too many commercials and finding good music is just too damn hard - I'm too young to listen to the oldies channel  ;-)   

I am always concerned when social conservatives start playing the Abortion card.  I know it is a sine qua non issue for them and I try to respect that fact.  It is also a guaranteed losing strategy in Oregon.  Of all states, we have the most permissive rules on when a woman can get an abortion, despite nearly forty years of attempts to change those rules.  Holding to the position that a Republican must be rigidly pro-life in order to get the nomination has led to a loss of every statewide office and most federal offices.  So to cast my voice into the ring, let me play the devil's advocate by trying to lay out how a libertarian republican might answer Bill's question.  

We must hold innocent life sacred.  But should we be handing the government the ability to decide deeply moral issues on which we as a nation are still deeply uncertain and undecided on it?  

The question for me is not when does life begin but rather when do we allow the government to decide that one moral decision is superior to another.  I have trouble with the position that human life begins at conception for several reasons.  It treats human life the same as every other form of life; for it could be said that all life whether frog, pine tree, dog, donkey, or elephant starts at the moment of conception.  It also ignores the high rate of human miscarriages.  Numbers I have seen posted at ranging from 25% to 50% of all human pregnancies terminate naturally, through no fault of the mother.  The question for me becomes when does the soul enter into the body?  

On that question we Americans remain divided and uncertain.  Some would say that it comes with the formation of the unique genetic code that may become a human if the pregnancy doesn't naturally terminate (i.e. at conception).  Others would say that it comes with the successful start of pregnancy (implantation on the uterine wall medically speaking).  Tradition going back at least to Biblical times claimed it happened at the 'quickening' when the baby started to move.  Some claim it happens when the baby is capable of life outside the womb.  A very small number claim it only happens at birth.  

Where to draw the line w/ such divided opinions - some rooted in tradition that goes back thousands of years, others rooted in modern science, and still others rooted in religious beliefs?  One of the most fundamental flaws in progressive thinking is to equate the law with what is right and wrong.  If it is wrong it must be against that law and if there is no law against it then it must be acceptable.  This ignores that the vast majority of social regulation in a just and free society does not happen at the level of law and government but at the level of the family, the church, and other social groupings.  The law is not a guide for right and wrong; the law is that point at which the individual's actions are so wrong that society as a whole has agreed that that individual has given up some portion of his natural liberty.  Law is the point at which the society as a whole can punish the individual with whatever amount of force is necessary to bring that individual back into compliance with the will of the society.  G. Washington recognized this by saying that government is like a fire, a wonderful servant but a terrible master.  

While we must protect innocent life, that does not mean that we reach first to the progressive's favorite weapon of government regulation.  The libertarian republican answer would be that we start with teaching our youth right from wrong (even when state run schools seeks to make it harder), then we live the life our faith teaches us to lead (whatever faith that is), and in living that life we serve as examples to others and help them to avoid making bad decisions.  If called upon, we minister as our faith teaches and council the parents against the destruction of innocent life - but without the threat of punishment that underlies every governmental regulation and rule.  

Is my heart in the wrong place because I distrust the government to make moral decisions for the entire society when we as a society have not yet reached consensus on the issue? Do I care less about innocent life because I doubt the political effectiveness of a particular position based on a forty year history and advocate for alternative strategies (another posting) that can reach the same goal?

The answer to those questions depends on what do you mean by conservative....and that is another post for another time.