Some people are playing fast and loose with language in order to manipulate political situations. I would like to set a few things straight. Take for instance the term “conservative,” which means minimizing risk and minimizing resource use. A conservative must care about conservation of resources, independence and fiscal responsibility. In political terms, a conservative should be pro-efficiency, pro-environment (conservation), anti-big spending and desiring of low taxes, minimal regulation and, of course, balancing the budget. And yet, so-called “conservatives” are known to drive extremely inefficient passenger vehicles (SUVs, etc.), instigate expensive wars, borrow money from other countries, rely on foreign resources (oil), destroy environmental protections at home while wasting time and money regulating social contracts like marriage.
On the other hand, “liberal” indicates a belief in personal freedom. A liberal must care about the well-being and freedom of choice for individuals. In political terms, a liberal should be pro-equality, pro-environment (for health), pro-labor (rights), anti-imprisonment, anti-war, pro-health, supportive of personal freedom of action (speech, drugs, etc.). And yet, many so-called “liberals” oppose recreational drug use, promote war and are pro-prisons, tacitly anti-miscegenation, enforcers of gender-based discrimination and willing participants in a system that deliberately squanders resources (causing unnecessary disposal problems and related health issues) and routinely uses indentured servants as “labor” (illegal immigrants at home or sweat-shops abroad) for production of goods, all in the pursuit of ever greater profits. And some of these same so-called liberals support governmental regulation of social contracts like marriage.
In the 2008 presidential race, the Democratic candidate is actually more “conservative” than the Republican candidate (in that he’d at least like to balance the budget and lower offensive military spending). Even some Republicans think so. Neither candidate is especially conservative (not on the environment, where both support expanding resource development without any attempt increase efficiency and reduce usage), nor is either candidate especially liberal (where both support the reactive and profit-driven healthcare industry [which benefits from increased sickness], the criminal imprisonment system and the non-defensive military). And other political parties that might better represent conservative or liberal values (such as the libertarian and green parties) are pretty much shut out of the process due to mainstream refusal to include in coverage/debates.
My favorite misnomer, however, is the ubiquitous “pro-life” (and the peripheral “right-to-life”) . The first time I heard that, I thought Cool, me too – I oppose killing, but then I came to realize that people are misusing this term to mean “anti-abortion.” While the fate of a human fetus hardly covers the breadth of “life,” abortion itself is not a black-and-white issue. Aside from the issue of miscarriage (a natural occurrence which isn’t that big a deal, and is very similar to abortion, which can be considered induced miscarriage), there are two issues to consider: resources and health. If not enough resources exist for a potential child to be cared for, then there is a likelihood it could die in childhood and inducing miscarriage in that situation would be consistent with a pro-life stance. Likewise, if the birth is likely to cause death for either mother or potential baby, then inducing miscarriage is not inconsistent with pro-life stance.
A pro-life stance could be one in which induced miscarriage is only allowed in certain circumstances (i.e., death-danger to mother or child during birth or extreme resource scarcity which causes death-danger for mother or child following birth) . However, I personally believe that, in a more abstract sense, bringing unwanted life into existence (life that will not be properly cared for and loved) is inconsistent with a pro-life stance. I also believe that enforcing motherhood on any individual (even if only for the duration of pregnancy which can cause extreme hormonal shifts, discomfort and incapacitation) is also inconsistent with a pro-life stance. So I consider myself both pro-life and pro-choice.
As for the definition of pro-life, it really means what it says: pro-life. That is, a pro-life ideology supports lives in general and a “right to life” or the right to continued existence for those already alive. Specifically, a pro-life advocate should be pro-environment (conservation), pro-peace/anti-war, pro-human welfare, pro-non-human welfare (vegetarian). While opposing euthanasia is consistent with a pro-life stance, supporting deadly force of any kind (including death-penalty punishment, instigation of war, animal exploitation for medical science or taste-pleasure), except for direct defense of life (i.e., self-defense), is markedly anti-life.
