Below I talked a bit about a certain leftward drift in my political outlook over the last few years. Another impetus for my move away from certain mainstream conservative positions, I think, has to do with trying to work out a consistent ethic of life. For about as long as I’ve given these things any thought I’ve found something morally problematic about abortion, even as an atheist.* I still don’t have a satisfying position on what abortion’s legal status should be, but I do think there should, as a rule, be a strong presumption in favor of life.

This leads naturally to skepticism about things like cloning and embryonic stem-cell research and genetic manipulation of humans,** not to mention euthanasia and assisted sucicide, pretty standard conservative fare (though libertarians strongly object to this kind of “bio-Luddism” as an affront to personal autonomy). But I’ve also been forced to reexamine my beliefs about what happens at the other end of life. I used to be more or less in favor of capital punishment (with the usual caveats about applying it fairly – something easier said than done!), but am now pretty firmly against it.

And, as regular readers may be aware, I’ve put a lot of effort into thinking about when lethal force is permissible for self-defense and protection of others. While not a convinced pacifist, I do think the issues of proportionality and noncombatant immunity in particular make modern war problematic. I’m probably now closest to what seems to be the position of the current and recent popes that there is a strong presumption against war, which should only be undertaken as a last resort.

Finally, I’ve found that it makes sense to extend concern about the protection of innocent life beyond human beings, and this is really where most conservatives get off the train (though former Bush speechwriter Matthew Scully is a notable exception). If one takes seriously the idea that the non-human creation isn’t simply there for our purposes, but has an integrity of its own, then practices like factory farming and animal experimentation are called into question, as is our shoddy treatment of the natural environment, something many conservatives are loath to deal with (and hence my qualified sympathy for crunchy connery). Granted that these are complicated issues which often don’t have straightforward solutions, respect for life shouldn’t end with our own species. Of course, start going down this road and you might find yourself questioning our entire Western commitment to technological progress. Heck, you might even find youself voting for the Green Party four years after voting for George Bush.

What I would like to think is that I’m learning to think about these things in a way that’s rooted in my faith more than in loyalty to a particular party or ideology. But I have to remind myself that Christians can and do disagree on just about every political issue under the sun, and I’m in no position to be dictating to others what the proper Christain stance on any given issue is. But I do think we do ourselves a disservice when we let ourselves get boxed into traditional categories of “left” and “right.”
——————————————————————–
*Curiously, you frequently see accusations that pro-lifers want to apply a narrow, sectarian religious view on everyone else. But all the really convincing anti-abortion arguments I’m familiar with rest on secular premises (even if the people making the arguments have strong religious convictions). I’m not even sure what a strictly religious argument against abortion would look like, nor does it seem to me that pro-lifers usually makes their arguments in religious terms.

**I’m a big fan of both Huxley’s Brave New World and C.S. Lewis’s The Abolition of Man, both of which deal with the question of to what extent we should try to alter human nature itself.