An Actually “Consistent Ethic of Life” Would Care About Women’s Lives (a response to a “consistent ethic of life,” part 2)

Advocates of a “consistent ethic of life”—as Tish Harrison Warren put it in a recent NYT opinion piece, an ethic that is “antiwar, anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, anti-euthanasia and pro-gun control”—tend not to address a glaring question: What does it look like to “extend compassion” to women’s lives?

(This is the second part of a 2-part post; the first part is here.)

In “consistent ethic of life” thinking, concern for fetal life comes across strongly. But where is the concern for the lives of pregnant people? 

Where is the concern for the people for whom anti-abortion legislation means more danger, more suffering, more debilitating complications, more death? People for whom good healthcare includes the option of abortion?

People for whom pregnancy turns out to be complicated—as it does, and terrifyingly so, for lots and lots of pregnant people, perhaps much more so than people who have not been pregnant tend to realize? People who need all options on the table to ensure their survival and wellness—to value their lives?

Where Is the Zeal to Protect Women’s Lives?

“Consistent ethic of life” advocates who want to protect fetal life cannot do so in good faith without finding an equal zeal to protect women’s lives. 

Really, the zeal to protect women’s lives should be greater; after all, we are fully formed people, not an ant-sized bundle of cells that could become a human someday. (And I’m not exaggerating—a fetus at 6 weeks is roughly the size of an ant.) Others may disagree about how exactly we balance these concerns. But the point is that there has to be some kind of balance. Some kind of care for women’s lives.

Because the reality is that anti-abortion legislation means more death for more women. I wish it didn’t need to be said—and said again—that women are people whose lives are worth protecting. But it does.

If we want to talk about a “consistent ethic of life,” we have to acknowledge all the death that anti-abortion legislation causes. All the suffering. All the extra terror for women going through miscarriages—which is a very real reality for a huge percentage of women. (According to one large study, 43% of women who have had at least one closer-to-full-term pregnancy have also had a spontaneous miscarriage in the first trimester.)

Being able to terminate a pregnancy that threatens a woman’s health is essential healthcare for women. And how consistent is a “consistent ethic of life” without healthcare?

A Different Kind of Remix

I’m all for a “remix” of political parties, to use Warren’s words. I’m all for a “new moral vision.” But when it comes to affirming life across the board, “antiwar, anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, anti-euthanasia and pro-gun control” doesn’t cut it for me. Because “anti-abortion” is too often the opposite of truly life-affirming.

Sure, a “consistent ethic of life” that cares about environmental degradation and supports social services that help people live longer and have a better quality of life is worlds better than a single-issue “pro-life” voting commitment that concerns itself with none of these things. But it is not really “consistent” unless it concerns itself with women’s lives. 

Likewise, a truly consistent life-affirming ethic would also support protections for queer and trans lives.

And it would affirm the lives of people of color: It would advocate for police and criminal justice reform. It would support affirmative action. And it would speak honestly of the history and present-day realities of racism. It would confront and not deny the things that shorten people of color’s lives and make their experience of life more stressful and demeaning, with the aim of undoing these things.

Private Beliefs vs Public Legislation

Christians can hold a personal belief that abortion is not a good idea. It may not be something they think they would choose personally. They may not advise a friend to choose it. But people can hold this personal conviction without believing that governments should outlaw the procedure.

Penalty-imposing “anti-abortion” legislation does not actually “protect” unborn life. Rather, it only serves to make pregnancy more dangerous. Any discussion of a “consistent ethic of life” must take women’s lives into account alongside fetal lives.

We need a different kind of remix. We need to resist the urge to hide behind rhetoric of protection and championship that really does nothing of the sort. We need to value women’s lives. A true “consistent ethic of life” calls for nothing less.