Minority Rights Advocate

Fighting for the smallest minority: The Individual

  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 25 other followers

  • Topics

  • Advertisements
  • Old Posts

  • Top Posts

PRO-Choice, and PRO Environment – this is CONSERVATIVE, not PROGRESSIVE!

Posted by mrfixit on November 9, 2010

A friend asked me about how to best deal with these issues and how to explain how the conservative deals with the issue of the environment and women’s reproductive choices.  Here is my attempt.

Well, first of all, no real conservative will ever deny choice that is based on the natural right of liberty; actually liberty minded conservatives who root their views in the profound and enduring truths of unalienable INDIVIDUAL rights cannot really be for use of force to demand others to do things with their life choices at all.  But there are limits when those “choices” become an infringement upon the rights of others.

The Declaration of Independence was all about the promise to secure INDIVIDUAL rights and liberty.  Not about force of any government to demand allegiance or compliance.

The recognition of the flaws inherent in mankind, our nature to be selfish/greedy, to not do what is best, or in a religious context – our sinful nature, well that requires that we have some form of government that is based upon the need to secure our liberty, in essence to protect EACH person’s rights form others who might infringe upon those rights.

Specifically mentioned in the Declaration were the unalienable rights of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

So, that then leads us to the “pro-choice” stance.  To a Conservative, that choice is to conceive or not to conceive.  There are many options out there these days for those not willing to bear children, and those are to be used by choice, that is pro choice. 

Here is the problem, once conception occurs, you are now dealing with a new soul, a new being, that new human is “endowed by our creator” granted unalienable individual rights, which include the right to life, and that now is a case where government has the role and responsibility to secure those unalienable rights, and it is no longer just a “choice” of any human to willingly terminate the life of another, no more so as it would be to terminate the life of any other already born person.  This would be an obvious denial of the unalienable right to “life”.

Yes, I know, that is pretty direct and unwavering, but it just is.  Not all conceptions lead to successful birth, miscarriages are frequent but not willful, an act of god. I also know there are cases where crimes are involved and where the choice to conceive was properly granted for the women, those cases perhaps deserve special considerations, but even there the ability to prevent a conception exists (often happens hours later, or more) when there is prompt care and modern medicine, but not to dwell on the difficult extreme, in any case rare in terms of total numbers.  The vast majority of abortions are elective, by choice and from those that had consensual sex to begin with.  In those cases the resulting miracle of life was viewed not as a gift from God, it was viewed as a burden, an inconvenience and thus unjustly committed to die.  Now, I know I invoke the word God here, as with the Declaration with the “Creator”, but one does not have to believe in God to understand the wisdom of unalienable rights granted by a higher power, nature if one wants to be secular, in any case rights that cannot be denied.  This because a right that is granted by mankind, can then also be denied by mankind as well.

For more about unalienable rights:


So you see, PRO-Choice is conservative, but it is about when the choice is valid.  We cannot choose to murder children after birth, so why should we choose to do so before birth?  There have been cases tried and people convicted for using violence upon pregnant women and caused death of the unborn and were held to account for that offense.  As it stands now, our system has at least some recognition of life from the time of conception; can any other point really make sound sense anyway?

Oddly, the story below (woman charged with 1st degree murder for assaulting pregnant woman and killing unborn baby) had to be viewed from a cached page, the original no longer available, why? 


This one in Boston is still up; women beat pregnant women and killed the unborn baby:


Then for contrast, an attempted forced abortion, in NY, where apparently they don’t recognize the un-born as a person:


Ok, next let’s talk Environment.  The straw man the progressive left puts up is that the Conservative wants to lay waste to the planet, literally turn it into a toxic wasteland.  This is outrageous and absurd.  That doesn’t even fit the term Conservative, let alone it would make no sense to support such horrible ideas.

The Conservative views the environment as vital to our existence as well. The Conservative looks to achieve prosperity knowing that prosperity allows for greater environmental stewardship, and allows the capacity for humans to play a more active role in protection and restoration of areas that have been damaged either by mankind or natural causes.

Look around the world and you’ll see that the prosperous, capitalist nations are the ones that have the most success at improving or maintaining the environment.  In contrast the worst records are in the poor, dictatorship, or communist regimes. 

Yes, capitalism itself does not have a clean record, even in the US you don’t have to go back too far in history to the time when pollution was so bad in Lake Erie that there were no fish, and it wasn’t really a good idea to swim either, in fact many places were much, much worse than today. So then what happened?

Prosperity happened! 

Think about it this way, if you can barely find food to eat, or work for 12 hours a day for the bare essentials, do you have time or capacity to worry about cleaning up a mess or be concerned about recycling or such? – No, when in a bare essentials, survival type mode, the concern about environmental footprint becomes irrelevant. 

Look at the pollution in China today, it is like a heavy thick Fog that looms over the major cities, they have rapid growth, but many still live on the bare minimum, and as such the efforts to clean the environment are taking back seat to prosperity, but give it time, the Chinese, when/if prosperous will make the environment a higher priority when there is more prosperity to allow it to become a priority.

A clean environment is good for all, and as good stewards, we should make use of resources responsibly. 

I can say from personal example, and as a long time Conservative, I have made efforts, even back in High School as part of Students for Environmental Action, to help make more responsible use of resources, which just so happens to fit in the efficiency mold that is the essence of a competitive capitalist!

I personally hauled paper for recycling, even when it was not economically advantageous for paper companies to use recycled paper, new material is, maybe still today, cheaper and easier to use, but he cost of solid waste has risen so much it has driven recycling perhaps even more than the any advantage of using the recycle process.

Here is another, kind of funny today, perspective.  I was part of a team that competed to come up with a solution to and environmental problem using information technology.  Our solution:  Reduce newspaper waste to landfills (almost 25% at the time of the total!) by standing up and distributing an electronic newspaper as an alternative!

Funny now, because that is how many, if not most, people view news today – online.  But back then it was monochrome black and green screen computers and dial in 2400 baud modems that made the system work, oh and on a 16 Mhz computer!

One must be careful, not all environmental causes are worthy, some Environmentalists are actually anti-human, placing the earth and all creatures above man in priority and those that actually see mankind as a cancer on the earth.  I know sounds crazy, but in a prior post I dealt with this:


A Conservative understands that we can be responsible with the environment and permit prosperity at the same time.  We do not have to un-invent technology, we need to improve it!  In contrast, how often do the Progressive environmentalists advocate a backwards approach to environmental problems?   They would prefer to shutter the factories that produce the value and prosperity, they’d have you ride a bike to work, or mass transit, they’d have you drive a smaller car, or have you live in a smaller house, have you set your thermostat at a lower temp, on and on.  They’d have you reduce your freedom, prosperity, quality of life and opportunity to “save” the earth, but it doesn’t work.  You see without prosperity, people become less concerned about environmental stewardship and more concerned about survival, we’d actually end up regressing back to the days when responsible use was not a priority.  The progressive would have us regress, not progress. 

So why would they do this?  Well that is a long discussion, but read many of the posts on this blog, and it will eventually become clear. They feel entitled to rule over you, and to distribute LIMITED resources (for your benefit of course!) – It is all about power.  Freedom is impossible to control, and it is distributed power, these people despise that kind of uncontrolled prosperity, not the prosperity per say, but the lack of control.  They prefer control and poverty over prosperity and lack of control, just look at the areas where the progressive collectivists have power:  Poverty and control, not freedom and prosperity: inner cities, blue states – like California and New York! , pick your example.

For some previous topics about Conservative vs. Liberal/Progressive/Socialist/Collectivists:


For perspective on the differences in parties, and links to both WA state Republican and Democrat party platforms:



So, in NY City about 40% of conceptions end with an abortion, and the largest numbers are found within the minority population!  Now the very people that often call the pro-life activists bigots and even racists, well they are out there fighting for the right to life of babies that are in very large numbers racial minority babies!  

The Real racists and bigots are found with those that founded Planned Parenthood and now keep it going, they INTENTIONALLY target minority women for abortions and the numbers suggest they have been quite effective!


(and this is good news!  Yes, this rate is way DOWN if you can believe it… However it is clear much more downward movement is needed!)

If you haven’t heard this, look into Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, a eugenics promoter, and clear racist!


One Response to “PRO-Choice, and PRO Environment – this is CONSERVATIVE, not PROGRESSIVE!”

  1. […] https://minorityrightsadvocate.wordpress.com/2010/11/09/pro-choice-and-pro-environment-%e2%80%93-this… […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: