2006-07-01 17:54:50 · 11 answers · asked by Elizabeth 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Other - Society & Culture
(this answer has nothing to do with my own personal beliefs, and I cannot speak for everyone.) I think it is because they value the human right to choose. They value the right of a woman to choose what is done with her body. And they could view the fetus as part of the woman. The fundamental reason people do not understand others stance on abortion, is that not everyone draws the same line to define independant life that has rights. Generally people against abortion view life as starting from conception, from the moment the egg is fertilized and the DNA is sequenced and all that, it becomes its own life for those people. Others, for abortion, or for choice may not see it that way, they may not see the fetus as being alive until its heart beats, or until it is discernable as a human, or perhaps until it takes its first breath, early cultures defined life as breath. Thats why God 'breathed life into Adam' in the book of Genesis in the Bible. I don't think that its whether or not they value life, it is just how they define life that makes the difference.
2006-07-01 18:02:24 · answer #1 · answered by nt326 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Maybe because many animals are going extinct and humans are overpopulating the planet, lol.
Sorry, just having fun playing devil's advocate (but it IS true).
Actually my guess would be more along the lines of abortion being more humane if you do not believe the embryo is truly alive and conscious, while animal testing and other animal rights issues are unusually cruel and promote and prolong the suffering of a living animal.
Personally I don't really care for the mistreatment of ANY living thing, canine, feline, or fetus. I really wish birth control were more widely used, so that abortion would become less common.
2006-07-01 18:03:51 · answer #2 · answered by cooperslassie 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Animal Rights = making sure that animals are not being abused or tortured, as they often are.
Pro-Choice = making sure the rights of the mother are weighed more heavily than the rights of the unborn. Her body, her choice.
It would by hypocritical for an animal rights activist to support child abuse, as that is the kind of thing we fight against for animals. Abortion, however, is another matter entirely. There are many issues at stake there, such as, what if the mother was raped? For example I know a tewlve year old rape victim. Having to carry around her rapists child for nine months and then give birth to a baby she could not support would be additional trauma. She's not emotionally ready for that sort of thing.
They are different issues with different things at stake.
2006-07-01 18:01:54 · answer #3 · answered by Victoria G 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Do you mean "support choice"? Not everyone who supports choice would have an abortion herself.
Makes total sense that someone who supports choice for a human body would also do so for any other animal's body. The decision of what to do with a body should be made by the owner of the body.
2006-07-01 18:04:08 · answer #4 · answered by bikerchickjill 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
sure, i'm professional-existence and that i'm a vegan and an animal activist. To me, the price of human and animal existence is equivalent, so killing animals at a slaughterhouse and unborn children in a medical institution are appropriate. there is a great number of discussion on even if the fetuses sense discomfort, nicely they probable can like you pronounced, besides the undeniable fact that the point is it really is a existence that has all started and ethically could no longer be stopped. pretty with such a great number of probability-free adoption courses available on the instantaneous, its nonetheless her decision even if she needs to save the toddler or no longer save the toddler, its only a lot less unfavorable. Rape victims, i want would evaluate adoption. contained in the top human beings are animals, so we want safe practices regulations protecting us alive (or those who would change into alive) too. merely my opinion, besides the undeniable fact that.
2016-10-14 01:20:30 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
More or Less as far, as value is concerned, are opinion statements. Not factual universal truth. Don't look at it in terms of More important or less important. Look at it as, some human put it in their priorities to focus on humans, whilst others focus on the needs of animals, it has nothing to do with one another, but what one is focusing on at the moment.
2006-07-01 18:01:06 · answer #6 · answered by Answerer 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
well, if a person had a child, and loved it, and a person had a cat, dog, or another pet, and loved it as a child, is it not the same? i would give my life for my (of course, later in life, speaking in future tense) child, and (now) i would give my life for my cat.
if a lady got pregnant, she would (that is, willingly... :) ) she would want to keep her child, and if a cat or dog got pregnant, wouldn't she too want to have her babies? the only difference is that people can say if they want to, animals can't, but that doesn't mean that they would just not care.
2006-07-01 18:04:55 · answer #7 · answered by cheekymonkey1666 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They are just trying to cut down the number of millions of animals that are killed each year from over population!
2006-07-01 18:05:02 · answer #8 · answered by ? 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course. Even unborn ones. Makes you think.
2006-07-01 17:59:07 · answer #9 · answered by PJ 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Dose it really matter.I mean were all going to die any way.
2006-07-01 17:59:55 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋