We will not discuss "human dignity"...that is a baloney term for "make them suffer until they die naturally". I am opposed to that beyond words...
As am I, hence my support for high quality palliative care. The problem with euthanasia from a purely political perspective is that it creates a risk for the coercion of vulnerable persons into ending their lives prematurely. From a Christian perspective, it is a violation of the dignity of the human person, which is an icon of God; it is also potentially disadvantageous to the patient in terms of their soteriological status unless one takes a universalist view. From a philosphical perspective, setting aside questions of eschatology, one could argue life in pain is better than death. At any rate. the law of double effect means that a doctor can apply treatments the primary effect of which is to reduce pain, where death may result, and I cannot object to this, because there are obvious cases of severe pain where a risk to life is warranted in order to manage it.
Where is the human dignity of the people sleeping in the streets? Why isn't there a more concerted effort to get people off the streets and given the dignity of a safe home, food, clothing, mental health and medical help?
If you are talking about "human dignity" and oppose any government or otherwise programs to help those who are the least of these, I think you are full of baloney.
I would agree, at least in part. If by the word "any" you mean that I would be full of baloney unless I supported, or did not oppose, all programs to assist homeless and disadvamtaged persons, I would disagree simply because some programs are ineffective, and in some cases, some charities that receive state financing misuse those funds (see the recent very disagreeable case of Kids Company). In addition, some programs do stigmatize their clients, and we must be very careful, to the fullest extent, to avoid such stigmatization in order to protect individual dignity.
There are varying definitions of liberalism; most posters in this thread who you have disagreed with could be regarded as classically liberal. One benefit of "conservativism" as a label is that, used properly, it is not inherently ideological in terms of relating to any grand social vision; it is a very low level, nitty gritty, implementation-centric and details oriented approach to politics driven by questions of practicality. So as a conservative, I am able to support state assistance of the homeless, because I am not wedded to classical liberal approaches to economics, which can work out to be illiberal; at the same time I am not obliged to endorse the entire program of social liberalism where this can be shown to be ineffective. In general however, the visible homeless are among the most worthy recipients of assistance; no one should be homeless. we have the resources to deal with the problem, and I think it is in the best interests of society to deal with it effectively by providing housing and support services for such individuals that is free from stigma.
Lastly, I do very much support your idea that humans deserve to be treated as lvong images of God; this idea is central to the iconographic theology of Orthodoxy. I think you would find much to admire in St. Basil the Great, who organized the first institution you or I would recognize as a hospital, or St. John Chrysostom, who was exiled unto death for criticizing the decadent, indulgent lifestyle of the Imperial court in the face of the neglect of impoverished persons in Constantinople and elsewhere. There is a disagreeable crypto-Gnosticism in some of the ideologies that get passed around as conservative Christianity and it sounds as though you lack this, which is theologically and otherwise to your credit. In no sense do I disagree with your vision, I merely think some of your policy positions are inconsistent wih the basic premise of honouring the divine image in humanity.