It's time to come clean

I've been slamming some pro-choice groups pretty hard lately for being driven not so much by well thought out principles as by a combination of political correctness, ignorance, and mental laziness, which I labeled secular fundamentalism . How else does one explain the nonsensical reasoning of the Capilano Students' Union (see earlier posts), or of pro-choice groups who want to muzzle anything emanating from one of the choices?

In fairness, I should at this point trot out some of my own convictions for others to examine and critique if desired. What follows, in no particular order, are some of the things that I believe and don't believe, and why.

First and foremost, I derive my life principles from the Judeo-Christian heritage. What I find, not surprisingly, is that many of these principles are common to other faiths, and even to some people of no particular faith.

[Theological aside: This is what I would expect, given my belief that all of humanity is created in the image of God.]

I can't begin to list all of these principles and their implications for living in our society in our time, but I'll mention a few prominent ones.

1. Life is intended to be lived to the full, to be lived with meaning and purpose. The central teaching of my heritage is that life has purpose and direction, that it is not ruled by randomness or what is sometimes called darwinianism (nothing to do with my belief in human origins). A truly full life is characterized by economic justice and balance, human connectedness, and loving one's neighbour as oneself. My philosophy as a school board trustee for twenty-one years was that education should prepare a student for a life worth living (as opposed to the careerism that has beset education in recent decades).

A life of purpose and meaning will, of necessity, be one that is lived according to broad and flexible principles that reflect one's beliefs and values and can be applied consistently in varying situations, as opposed to rules that apply only to some situations. As I discussed in an earlier post, political correctness may reflect the flavour of the month with respect to some issue, but be turned on its head in a few years. I think, for instance, of how what constitutes feminist views has flipped and flopped around depending on who is doing the defining.

2. The family is the building block of society. Many cultures hold this principle highly; regrettably, North American culture has become increasingly individualistic. A "me first" ethos has predominated in our culture now for at least forty years. Canadian rock lovers of a certain age will remember BTO's big hit, "Looking Out for Number One."

And you'll find out every trick in the book, that there's only one way to get things done. You'll find out the only way to the top is looking out for number one.

3. Life is sacred. Humanity is made individually and collectively in God's image, endowing it with a dignity and worth beyond comprehension. The big difference between the pro-life groups and the pro-abortion groups is setting the time when that dignity and worth begin. In Canada, where abortion at any stage is legally permitted and publicly funded, all but a baby's head could be clear of the birth canal and its life could still be taken (partial birth abortion).

4. Humanity, individually and collectively, is not perfect. Darwinians would say that we are evolving towards a better state; most people of religious faith would say that we have "devolved", fallen from grace, and so on. Those in the former camp see the evolutionary process, by and large, as positive. The social contract, as it is constituted at any particular time, should guide political and ethical decision-making. The latter group (including myself) believe that we have given up much of life's meaning and direction and need to recapture it.

This is why scriptures play such a key role in most faiths. The problem is that even if they are viewed as infallible and inerrant, they are still susceptible to the vagaries of human interpretation. There is no comparison between the scriptural beliefs of mainstream Islam, for instance, and those of the Taliban and other Islamic terrorist groups. Or of the Christian fundamentalists and the Unitarian Church.

To understand scripture aright, one has to break through cultural conditioning and let the scriptural principles speak for themselves. Our worm's-eye approach to discerning the will of the Deity, embedded as we are in our respective cultures, makes taking a bird's-eye view, above and unimpeded by culture, very difficult. But if we are to discern eternal principles that apply to all cultures in all time periods, we have to get beyond cultural applications from any particular period.

5. God's long-term goal for humanity is one of peace, security, and happiness. In the Old Testament this is sometimes referred to metaphorically as "Jacob's rest." This goal is reflected in His many Old Testament laws having to do with strong, stable families, mutual accountability, and a major emphasis on justice, particularly for the marginalized in society. It is seen in his command that should punishment be necessary, that said punishment should fit the crime (which is what "eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth" means).

Taking all of the above together, I arrive at pro-life conclusions. Life is sacred. There is enough evidence from the Bible to satisfy me that life begins in the womb. [I'll spell this out in another post.]

Life has dignity and worth. There is nothing in my heritage that would suggest that these attributes are in anyway lessened by gender, race, age, state of health, creed, education, or any physical or mental challenge.

Therefore, those who are strong do not exploit the vulnerable, marginalized, exploitable, whether economically, politically, sexually or otherwise. Women, for instance, should have control of their own bodies, and no one should ever violate that right.

But should some odious man actually violate that woman, the punishment should fit the crime. But the baby has not committed any crime, nor in many cases has the woman. Let the punishment fall where it should.

Given my principles of mutual accountability, justice and the centrality of the family unit, public policy and private action must be geared to full support for a woman who has been entrusted, even against her will, with a sacred life in her womb. If the family is the building block of society, people should not be penalized for putting family first. If life is sacred, then individuals should not be penalized for giving birth. There are a host of policies that flow out of this that I can deal with at another time.

I should mention one last principle, not a scriptural one, but developed from a long life of advocacy and political involvement--politics is a blunt instrument for accomplishing moral objectives. The pro-life movement, if it wants to accomplish its long-term objectives, must become much more sophisticated than it is now. It can't overcome major challenges by simply waving signs and calling for quick political fixes. This too is a form of fundamentalism.

[The views expressed above are my own and do not necessarily reflect any pro-life person or organization with whom I am associated.]