It isn't really about which is "more important" morally. Both sides agree that infants have some legal rights, the questions are whether one of those legal rights is having their mother to bear them to term against their mother's will and if so, when that right begins and how much risk the mother can be required to accept in doing so.

Edit: One thing I don't see mentioned is how a ethically consistent Pro-Life stance seems to require support for state sponsored healthcare. Requiring people to bear the costs of pregnancy to achieve the state's moral obligations seems unreasonably cruel and counter productive if the infant's well being is the priority. Banning abortions without covering pregnancy costs seems more interested in imposing culture than in protecting the helpless.

On the other hand, the stance that one person cannot be forced to support another would seem to forbid universal healthcare. It's rare to see a 100% ethically consistent position in politics, where most decisions are based on self-interest.

> On the other hand, the stance that one person cannot be forced to support another would seem to forbid universal healthcare.

Nobody is forced to support anyone with universal healthcare. We won't (and shouldn't) send people to jail for not working. Taxes are a part of participating in the economic activity of your country and the amount you pay back into the system is mostly proportional to the amount you get out of it. Disputing the fundamental role of taxes is morally inconsistent in a Kantian sense as the income that is taxed relies on the economy enabled by the government those taxes support. There is plenty to debate about how much to tax and what to spend it on, but I can't take anyone seriously who claims taxes and government shouldn't exist.

While there is room for a range of opinion on what government should be doing, d

So, when do we start sending women to jail for a miscarriage?

Whenever we start sending people to jail for dying.

Death happens... it's only a crime if someone intentionally caused it.

Right, and if the miscarriage was caused by drinking, drugs, falling down the stairs? Who is to blame?

Accidents happen. But if someone besides the woman herself can be legally proved to be at fault, I'd argue that person ought to be guilty before the law of anything between involuntary manslaughter to murder, depending on motive, premeditation, actions, and surrounding circumstances.

To clarify my position further, I'm not entirely convinced a woman who intentionally aborts her own baby should be subject to legal review. Though I believe she's morally culpable for doing so, at least at present there are a lot of practical issues with enforcing such a law.

That being said, it's very different if someone else can be shown to have caused the miscarriage (or abortion) to occur -- whether directly or indirectly.

In the most extreme case, consider someone who pointed a loaded gun at a woman's pregnant belly, unprovoked, and fired it, causing the baby's death and injury to the woman. That person ought to be charged with 1 count of first-degree murder and 1 count of aggravated assault, at minimum.

To be clear, what I'm advocating is the equivalent of outlawing assisted suicide alongside murder/manslaughter/etc - all are morally wrong because they take a life.

If someone wants to commit suicide, the law can't do anything about it - they're morally culpable before God for that. But if someone helps them, that ought to be against the law.

If someone helps a woman kill her baby (whether through providing abortifacient drugs, performing an abortion, etc.), that also ought to be against the law.

Maybe I'm equivocating by saying maybe we shouldn't create a law against a woman taking action to terminate her own pregnancy. And I probably would change my mind if I became convinced that such a law could be enforced justly without subjecting grieving victims of miscarriages to a miscarriage of justice.