Equal Concern for Each Human Being, Not for Each Human Issue
by Richard Stith
Editor’s Note: Richard is responding to a recent article in LifeSite News which has a common criticism of the consistent life ethic by pro-lifers, that by addressing several issues we’re treating all of them as equally important, and thereby watering down the crucial importance of the right to life as a foundation. This was offered as a response, and in the spirit of a good exchange of views, we offer below e-mails between him and the editor.
Richard is a senior research professor at Valparaiso University Law School, and is on the board of the Consistent Life Network.
Richard Stith at March for Life in Washington, D.C.
The “seamless garment” or “consistent life” ethic should be understood as equal concern for every human being, not equal concern for every human issue.
If one person is threatened with losing her house and another is threatened with losing her life, equal concern for both would make us rush to the assistance of the latter, not the former. Thus those who think housing and abortion to be issues of equal weight are letting a false consistency cover up a deeply inconsistent politics of care. Such people have no right to cover themselves with the “seamless garment.”
Properly understood, true consistency is what we pro-lifers all uphold. Every one of us is absolutely inclusive. Not one of us cares more for unborn babies than for other human beings. Each of us would protest against the mass killing of toddlers or teenagers just as forcefully as we now protest against the mass killing of unborn babies. Our all-inclusive philosophy is often expressed in this way: We are for the equal protection of all human beings from conception to natural death.
Moreover, this inclusive approach is our best strategy to help the unborn. The only way abortion can be tolerated is if unborn babies are excluded from concern. That is why our opponents insist above all on not calling the babies “human beings.” They know that once the unborn are brought within the circle of our concern, there is absolutely no way that their cruel dismemberment can be justified. So our first pro-life step has to be simply to counteract specific exclusion of the unborn with their specific inclusion.
Thus, for example, a wonderful congregational prayer would be “For all people in our community, born and unborn, who are threatened by violence, let us pray to the Lord.” This phrase “born and unborn” is actually a much better reminder of the babies’ plight than just something focusing entirely on pro-life in a narrow sense, like “Let us pray for an end to abortion.”
By being inclusive and also explicitly mentioning the unborn, we do a much better job of focusing on them as fellow human beings just like the rest of us. Talking only about abortion makes killing unborn babies seem to be a side issue that can be easily ignored.
Bottom line: We pro-lifers need to seize upon the “seamless garment” and “consistent life” language, properly understood, and make it our own. We are the ones who want to include everyone. Our pro-abortion opponents are the ones who want to exclude some people from our society’s care and concern.
By contrast, when we attack the “seamless garment” and “consistent life” philosophies, we make ourselves seem to be the excluders and our opponents seem to be the includers, which is just the opposite of the truth.
Editor’s second note: Richard requested this be published in Life Site News and was turned down. The editor gave us permission to publish his response:
Personally, I don’t think we can co-opt the seamless garment to our advantage, although most of what you say makes sense. The social liberals created this phrase for a definite strategic purpose – to exploit strong pro-life sentiment to turn it towards social issues that are not about moral absolutes and which do not involve the deliberate killing of massive numbers of innocents. We can’t pretend that abortion is not the great evil that is it – as well as those issues related to it such as euthanasia, assisted suicide, infanticide, embryonic stem cell research, etc. – all killings of the most innocent and vulnerable.
LifeSiteNews
Richard responds:
=========================================
For more of our blog posts from Richard Stith, see:
Open Letter to Fellow Human Rights Activists
When “Choice” Itself Hurts the Quality of Life
For another blog post addressing this criticism, see:
Does the Consistent Life Ethic Water Down Life Issues?
Richard is (rightly) trying to meet single-issue pro-lifers where they are, but in the process the presentation of the CLE becomes potentially misleading. We’re not merely posturing to make pro-lifers look better; we actually do care about every human life at every stage (although that does have the added advantage of giving the pro-life movement a much better public image than defending life for some and death for others).
In that sense, the distinction between “each human life” and “each human issue” sounds somewhat hair-splitting to me. I do agree that issues involving the direct killing of human beings should be primary. But if we really mean “conception to natural death,” then we should ultimately oppose all forms of unnatural death from direct killing with equal vigor – even though different organizations and individuals will have different emphases in their work.
Furthermore, proceeding directly from the fundamental right to life is the right to a dignified life (which is strongly emphasized in the Catholic social tradition Richard and I share, and also extends beyond it). So I would be wary of conceding too much to those who would want to downplay even those technically secondary issues, which may be relatively less urgent but are still important parts of the bigger picture of the value of each human life.
Great discussion! Thanks to both writers for your authentic sharing.
[…] Equal Concern for Each Human Being, Not for Each Human Issue / Richard Stith […]