Amid toxic political polarization, many thinkers have sought to build bridges, trigger a dialogue, but have failed (due to obvious reasons). Each side insists it has got it right, and the other has got it all wrong. But what about those who agree with some conservative ideas but also find some progressive ones enticing too? Is there a place for this mix-and-match of ideologies? A nascent movement aims to offer precisely that. Whether it can replace the left/right binaries would be too early to say.

The idea is, one can have religious views on life and oppose abortions, but also care about poverty out of compassion (religious or otherwise). Do they go marching with one band today and the other tomorrow? Ideologies try to be exhaustive, covering all aspects under one tent. But for you, agreeing with the right-wing on the place of religion in society may not extend to agreeing with them on state welfare.

The trend shaping up against the cast-in-stone political binaries is “the whole life movement”: https://twitter.com/wholelifemov (where they describe themselves as “Pro-life progressives, Democrats, and feminists”)

Its followers also describe themselves as having a “consistent life ethic”: https://www.consistentlifenetwork.org/

Their other self-description is that they are pro-life “from womb to tomb”: https://www.plough.com/en/topics/justice/culture-of-life/womb-to-tomb

Their commitment is to protecting the life and dignity of ‘all’ people. This means, they oppose abortion, euthanasia, nuclear weapons, and death penalty. They support living wages, universal healthcare, ecological and racial justice, and adoption.

In other words, it is ‘pro-life’ – not just about birth but the whole of life. “A pro-life movement that ignores infant mortality rates, starvation, or the degradation of the environment simply does not deserve the label ‘pro-life’:” https://millennialjournal.com/2016/02/03/what-is-the-whole-life-movement/

A kind of agenda statement includes working against “certain threats to human life and dignity”:

*Abortion
*Global poverty
*Mass atrocities
*Protecting the Environment
*Human Rights
*Empowerment of Women and Girls
*Social safety net and economic justice

Criticisms are obvious. To begin with, what about women’s agency and autonomy?

Also, “Is this just kind of a softer, gentler Republicanism? Is this just pro-life progressivism?”: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/20/opinion/whole-life-movement-charlie-camosy.html

>>Dig deeper:

Books and videos from Charlie Camosy, among the pioneers of the movement:
https://www.newcitypress.com/losing-our-dignity.html