'Full Life' Philosophy

After the Republican defeats in 2006 and 2008, many people both inside and outside the party are attempting to sideline and remove the social conservative principles and even the members who hold them the most important in the party. Although I am not a social conservative myself, I do not agree that social conservatives should be caged up and belittled. Social conservative principles are just as important to the survival of the Republican party and this nation as fiscal conservative and “national defense conservative” principles. The party and its philosophy is big enough for all of us.

This attempts to make a solid, comprehensive case for the future of the “pro-life” movement that can appeal to both older Americans who have been involved with the pro-life movement and young Americans who are looking for new over-arching principles that are free of what has so far turned them off from the pro-life movement. It does deviate from traditional pro-life principles in some major ways, but it does so to try to create a broad “umbrella platform” that can be applied to a range of issues and excite a new generation of pro-life advocates.

The single line motto used to promote this “Full Life” or “New Pro-Life” or “Always Life” movement is: “Always for Life, from conception to natural death, and every day in between”.

The principles of this “Full Life” movement:

  • “Every life must be protected because there is incredible potential in everyone, no matter how poor or troubled a beginning”
    This is the argument against abortion. Provide here real-life examples of great people who came from backgrounds that are typically prone to high abortion rates, and ask the reader to imagine if these people had never been born. Children are never a burden on our economy or society in the long run as Nancy Pelosi or Barack Obama may believe.
  • “Every life deserves to grow up in a home where they are wanted and loved, even if it is not the home they were born into”
    This is the argument for adoption as an alternative to abortion. We must make it a priority to invest in this nation’s adoption programs to not only streamline the laws and regulations, but also find creative ways to finance their expanded size and scope. The long term goal would be to establish a full ecosystem of private charities and even businesses that can carry out the full range of needed services under sufficient regulation and oversight.
    There may be some problems because out of all of the principles, this one may require the most taxpayer money and government regulation in order to create and sustain this system. Also, there is the problem that in order for adoption to be considered by pregnant women instead of abortions (even if illegal), they will need a large amount of care and incentive during their pregnancy. If incentive for having the child is not provided, then they may resort to dangerous means to abort. However, if too much or the wrong kind of incentive is given, then some women may end up abusing the system for selfish means (repeatedly having children for free health care, for example). This is a problem currently unresolved, and open for discussion.
  • “There is no One-Size-Fits-All health care, while the best care is able to target differences between genders, ethnicities, cultures, and religions”
    This is the argument for privatized health care. The only way to ensure quality care to each citizen of this vast and diverse nation is to have a privatized system, where both businesses and charities are able to target all types of people and adapt in real-time as demographics change. When big government advocates point to countries in Europe as examples of centralized health care, they ignore the fact that America is tremendously larger and more diverse than any of these countries, and that prevents centralized systems from ever working here.
  • “Even when a life is taken in foreign conflicts, we must make sure that no others are taken along with it”
    This is the argument for greater investment in our military to improve the accuracy of our weapons and our intelligence gathering. The Full Life movement is not an anti-war movement because it recognizes that oftentimes conflict is unavoidable, especially when dealing with fanatical non-state terrorists. What we are determined to do is work with our military to greatly improve our ability to hurt only the people who deserve it, and minimize or even eliminate collateral injuries or death to innocents, especially those innocents being used as human shields. Some may at first think this principle seeks to blame the military for deaths and therefore reduce funding for it, but that is very much the opposite because it instead turns the pro-life movement into an investment in our military power for the sake of the noble goal of greater accuracy and precision.
  • “When we send our men and women into danger, we must make sure they are protected as much as possible”
    This is another argument for greater investment in our military to fully equip our warriors with defensive gear. We will not tolerate inadequate funding of our entire military of the bullet-proof vests, armored vehicles, and reinforced barracks. Yes, this is a stab at those politicians who resisted funding our troops during the recent wars and who may do so again in the future. But we can now reinforce our past position with this new over-arching Full Life movement.
  • “Our law enforcement is a powerful force for life, not death, when properly trained and equipped”
    This is the argument for greater investment in our many law enforcement agencies. Although police sometimes have a bad reputation when it comes to protecting life, the solution is to increase training, the amount of personnel, and the equipment they have, instead of cutting their funding in any way. This seeks to eventually equip law enforcement with non-lethal means to subdue suspected criminals, but only when that non-lethal means is proven to be effective in the field. We cannot rush to force technologies on our police if those technologies are not as effective as the current lethal tools, all in the name of reducing unnecessary deaths. This is because when we improperly equip our police with non-lethal tools before they are proven effective, we likely will be trading the death of a suspected criminal for the death of the police officer. But when a viable non-lethal option is developed, we should make it a top priority.
    The question of what kind of a role the federal government may have in helping local law enforcement agencies is currently unresolved, and open for discussion.
  • “There is rarely a life that is truly lost to society, even if they committed horrible crimes”
    This is the argument against the death penalty across the entire nation. Argue that even convicted criminals have a chance at spiritual redemption and contributing back to society. This does not mean they can ever be free citizens again, and in fact just replaces capital punishment with life in high security prison without any chance of parole. Whether the life-in-prison inmates spend their days sitting around their cell or are put to work doing menial labor in some way is left open for debate on the state level. This may be controversial to many conservatives who have favored capital punishment as a method of deterrent, but they should hopefully see this as a sufficient compromise to advance the pro-life movement. This can appeal to many wavering young Americans who are turned off by what they see as a hypocrisy within the pro-life movement of allegedly fighting for life at conception but then not caring about that life after birth. Removing this hypocrisy as they see it is a major step.

The above principles are really just a rough start to what could become a powerful platform. There are likely some issues which I have neglected to cover (such as the role of contraceptives, the teaching of abstinence, how pregnant minors are to be dealt with, how any exceptions for abortion in cases of danger to life of the mother if such cases even exist). Even if you disagree with some of these, please promote and recommend the article to bring in more discussion and debate.

And I will finish with a disclaimer that may surprise some. Although I have tried very hard to lay out convincing arguments for a greater pro-live movement to re-invigorate conservative ideals and appeal to young people, I myself am not pro-life. I am in fact pro-choice (although mild compared to what the rest of society seems to be), in favor of capital punishment (since I agree with a “eye for an eye, life for a life” in principle), and never want any children of my own (even abstaining from sex to make sure that happens). However, despite my traditional beliefs on the matter, I have tried to come up with arguments and a platform that could even convince me to join a pro-life movement.