“I am pro-life. That means I am also pro-social justice.” That’s the headline of a poster popping up a lot on Facebook the last few days. It appears with the hashtag “#WholeLife.”

I like the idea. It covers more ground. So should we declare ourselves “wholelife” rather than “pro-life”? I don’t think so.

All Life is Sacred

The author, the Jesuit priest Fr. James Martin, writes as one of the more popular Christian voices in the public square. He’s witty, cheerful, amusing and often amused. And, safe to say, politically fairly liberal.

The quote begins with his explaining that he is pro-life “until the natural end of life. … For all life is sacred, because all life is created by God.”

He spells out what that requires in practice: “That means that I support anything that helps a person live a full, healthy, and satisfying life, in every part of the world. So I am for care for the poor, for a living wage, for affordable health care, for adequate housing, for a humane work environment, for equal pay for women, for generous child care, for the support of the aged and infirm.” This applies to the marginalized, he says, like migrants, homeless people and abused women.

My response would be “Yes, absolutely! But not exactly.” The whole Bible and the Christian tradition tell us to care for others whenever they need our help. Fr. Martin listed the main groups who need our help today. So yes, absolutely.

But also not exactly. I’d delete a couple of his choices, like “Equal pay for women,” which assumes a “gender gap” that doesn’t exist. I’d add marriage as traditionally understood, which creates the family that gives children a whole life. It’s safe to say that Fr. Martin assumes extensive government aid and regulation, and believes that being whole life means promoting the welfare state. That belief one can dispute.

With quibbles, I basically agree with Fr. Martin. I’m whole-life too. Almost every pro-lifer is. That still leaves the question: Should those of us who’ve called ourselves pro-life now call ourselves whole-life?

Whole-life v. Pro-life

I don’t think so. It’s a matter of what’s fundamental. Let me explain it this way: “whole-life” is a political statement and “pro-life” is not.

Yes, the unborn child’s right to life has to be defended politically. It is political in that sense. We have to defend it politically because some powerful and determined people have used the legal and political process to take it away.

The unborn child’s right to live isn’t something we judge prudentially. It’s not something up for argument. We don’t vote on it. We don’t accept whatever answer the political process comes to as the best we’ve got.

But it’s not really political. Politics proper has to with prudential matters that can only be settled by votes and legislatures. Like the “whole-life” ideals of making sure everyone has a home and health care.

You can give a libertarian or a socialist answer to those questions, or any position in between. There’s no right or wrong answer to these questions, only better or worse, more effective or less effective, answers. People who disagree come to compromise through politics. The system’s not perfect, but it’s the best we’ve got.

The unborn child’s right to live isn’t that kind of thing. It’s not something we judge prudentially. It’s not something up for argument. We don’t vote on it. We don’t accept whatever answer the political process comes to as the best we’ve got. The unborn child’s right to live is a matter of something that’s simply true, that’s above and beyond politics.

The Unborn Neighbor

You cannot kill the unborn child. He has the right to live. He doesn’t lose it because courts take it away or pro-abortionists win votes.

You’ll never see a headline saying, “In a bipartisan vote, the state senate voted today that the residents of East Cowpie can shoot Percy Septictank on sight.”

That’s a truth of the same sort as “you can’t kill a man on the street because you want to” or “You can’t kill your annoying neighbor to make your life better.” You just can’t. Everyone knows that.

No one claims that we can vote about the conditions under which you can kill your annoying neighbor. Not a single person argues that the neighbor’s right to life rests on winning a vote in the state legislature. You’ll never see a headline saying, “In a bipartisan vote, the state senate voted today that the residents of East Cowpie can shoot Percy Septictank on sight.”

Pro-lifers recognize the unborn as our neighbor. (That word “recognize” is important.) In some cases he may be your annoying neighbor, but you can’t kill him for that. He’s just as much a human being with rights as the man next door. There is no rational argument that makes him anything else.

So Pro-Life

A society that’s not pro-life won’t be whole-life either.

That’s why we should keep calling ourselves pro-life. Being pro-life states a definite position on a fundamental matter. Being whole-life says you have certain ideals that can be reached in different ways. All it really says is that you’re not a social Darwinist who’s happy to let people suffer. A society that’s not pro-life won’t be whole life either.

The real issue today isn’t the ideals collected under the heading “whole life.” The real issue is our law’s rejection of a fundamental truth and our society’s willingness to kill unborn children. That’s the truth we need to push.

We need to be proudly, loudly and clearly “pro-life.” To get to whole-life, you have to start there.