Abortion Rights vs. Animal Rights...Justifications Behind Beliefs (Creator, Earth)

dawny0826 · #1 03-02-2006, 12:59 PM

I'm not ignorant to the fact that abortion and animal rights are two very separate arenas but I notice a similarity between how some people justify their beliefs on these two issues. (And note, I REALIZE that these are not the VIEWS of EVERYONE who is pro-choice and pro-animal rights.)

I have come across individuals in my life and have heard or read the views of people who are pro-choicers yet are adament about pushing for and protecting animals rights.

And when asking these individuals why they stand firm on the animal rights issue...the most common answer I receive is along these lines...

"I'm speaking for those who cannot speak for themselves."

In many ways, the pro-lifer justifies their views the very same way. I am pro-life because I cherish life and feel that I need to speak up for those who cannot protect and/or speak for themselves.

The individual seeking to protect the rights of animals often feels the same...they cherish the life of animals and feel the need to speak out for animals, since they cannot do this for themselves.

Further, from the pro-choicer side...I hear/read a lot of this in debates...

"But...a fetus isn't human. It's living but it's not human."

Can't the same be said for animals?

Is there hypocrisy in supporting the rights of animals but not supporting the rights of the unborn?

How does an animal deserve more rights than a LIVING being inside the womb?

Can we scientifically prove that a living, breathing animal in the animal kingdom has any more or less consciousness or cognitive ability than the growing fetus?

And can you argue that like animals...the fetus has NO voice?

Edit: This isn't a flame against any particular individual. I'm not fishing for reaction. I'm genuinely interested in knowing how others view this.

kevmicsmi · #2 03-02-2006, 01:10 PM

Well said Dawny, I feel I can reconcile my beliefs that I am against abortion, and I am against animal cruelty.

IMO the Lord created humans with dominion over the earth, so using animals for food, or clothing, or for medical advancement is perfectly ok. But human life to me is in the sacred image of God, and therefore can not be terminated unless the life of the mother is at risk, or imo if the child will have no chance of survival.

I do see a Hypocracy in standing up and fighting for peta's views, while ignoring all the innocent chlildren that have been aborted.

dawny0826 · #3 03-02-2006, 05:37 PM

Just wanted to give the thread a little bumparoo...

IndigoSea · #4 03-03-2006, 12:26 AM

This is interesting to me.
I've been a vegetarian and strong believer in Animal Rights for almost eight years. I believed (and still do believe) that the abuse committed upon animals in factory farming conditions is absolutly horrific, I had also always been an adamant pro-choicer, not because I hate unborn babies but because I believed in a woman's right to have absolute dominance over her body.
However, the seed of doubt was planted in my mind after reading a book called "Tikvah: Children's Book Creators Reflect on Human Rights". I found a picture in there that was by one of my favorite illustrators, and a segment she had written talking about the human rights of unborn babies. I had believed in abortion rights for a long time, so didn't take it outwardly on board.
One evening I was having a conversation with my uber-atheist vegetarian pro-choice husband about the topic of abortion (one of us usually plays devil's advocate, as we agree on most topics! and that was my role this time) when it occured to me that I actually believed the arguments I was coming up with, I was asking how we can believe something like a chicken should have rights to life but not believe an unborn human should have the same right. Surely after a few months in the womb a fetus has the self-awareness of a chicken?
I don't consider myself "pro-life", but you can't support one form of life without supporting another, it's just hypocracy. I realize that a group of 8 divided cells has no self-awareness, but going by studies I think it does by around 3 or 4 months.
In short, I believe abortion ethical up to two months, three at the most. I don't think access to it should be limited, because if someone is adament to have an abortion then why would anyone want to make it so the fetus is another month old by the time the procedure takes place? I believe access to early abortion methods like the mornin-after pill should be unlimited, I think pregnancy tests should be nest to free (because what terrified 15 year old can spend $10 on one?) and I believe young people need very very clear sexual education. It frightens me how many girls believe it when boys tell them it's impossible for them to get pregnant first time. This is a first-world country, we have no excuse for the restriction of information that has been imposed upon young people, keeping them "innocent" by keeping them ignorant. These are the kinds of people who are out having abortions at 5 or 6 months.

Similarly, I believe it's foul to keep veal calfs in tiny crates, fully comprehending their surroundings, and finish them off in a painful and early end. It's the same thing in my mind as pulling an underdeveloped fetus from the womb.

The hypocracy of anyone who comes away from a pro-life gathering or protest and tucks into a veal steak at the local steakhouse is simply beyond me.
I imagine this thread has not recieved many comments for that reason.

dawny0826 · #5 03-03-2006, 12:37 AM

Thanks for your post, IndigoSea.

Well put.

WeAreAllOne · #6 03-03-2006, 08:46 AM

Quote: