Do you feel that a pro-animal rights stance and pro-choice (pro-abortion) position are contradictory?

Question

If one is totally for animal rights, then they respect all life no matter big or small that animal is, no matter what its age is, no matter what thier perceived economic value is.

A cute kitten deserves to live as much as a lizard, or a goat, or a sea urchin - or even a human!

And eating veal is no worse than eating the meat from an adult cow. Because age is no factor in the right to live.

Well, isn't a fetus just a less developed, youger version of a human? Its a smaller human, only its limited in its abilities. Here in tge good old USA you always have rights, no matter where you are or who you are. So even in the womb you should have rights.

I compare the two issues because both are about respecting all lifeforms at all time.

So why is it that liberals tend to be pro-choice? And many of these same liberally minded people would want to gaurentee rights for seals and otters?

What do you think?

Answer 1

So, if a seal is pregnant, she is having little seals...
But if a woman is pregnant, she is having "a clump of cells"
How incredibly interesting...

Answer 2

"Here in tge good old USA you always have rights, no matter where you are or who you are. So even in the womb you should have rights."

U.S. Constitution . . .

Amendment XIV

Section 1. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Note the first five words, "All persons born or naturalized..." Fetuses do not have the rights of born persons, even in the Constitution.

If you actually want to know why some people are pro-choice, read:
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/abortsec.html#human
Excerpt:
"The denial of fetal personhood incidentally is not a denial that a healthy, late term fetus has developed a number of mental capacities, among them a degree of perception, memory and susceptibility to pleasure and pain, capacities that pro-lifers are fond of pointing out. What pro-lifers fail to notice, however, is that these capacities don't elevate the moral status of the fetus above that of a typical farm animal. Indeed on account of their greater intelligence, mature farm animal resemble persons more than fetuses do. To imply otherwise by brandishing images that display fetus' humanoid appearance is to commit the fallacy of speciesm. Arms and legs and fingers and toes are not the basis for moral standing."

You may well disagree with the beliefs of those of us who are pro-choice, but at least be intellectualy honest and find out why we take the position we do.

I realize that some theists believe that we humans, unlike other animals, have something that they call a "soul." However, this is a mythological concept, and has no place in secular law.

"And eating veal is no worse than eating the meat from an adult cow. Because age is no factor in the right to live."

You compared two breathing, autonomous beings of different ages. A fetus is neither of those things, so there is no comparison. Having been born, not age, is the relevant factor.

Answer 3

Animal rights is usually based upon the fact that they feel pain. I'm not saying that I agree with abortions, but the depending upon the developmental stage of the fetus, they may not even feel pain. True, respect all lifeforms, but you don't exactly carry around a goat on your chest for nine months when you have it. I hope abortions become rare in the future with better parental planning and birth control. Also keep in mind abortion rights are usually to preserve the right, not promote it. So like rape and incest, and if the baby would result in the death of the mother, etc, should be allowable under these certain conditions. So keep abortion legal isn't the same as saving the slaughtered animals, its more or less keeping an extreme option open for those rare cases. Or at least hopefully, they will be rare.

Answer 4

I'm an adult woman......probably much older than you are. I'm a liberal and a feminist, I am pro-choice and I believe in animal rights. I see no dichotomy in this. Pro-choice means just that CHOICE. It means that a girl or a woman will have a choice...the decision is a highly personal one and up to each individual. No person should be able to coerce a girl or a woman into continuing an unwanted pregnancy, and no person should be able to coerce a girl or woman into terminating a pregnancy. The choice must be up to each individual, but the choice must be there. I don't have any problem with being pro-animal rights. Animals should be able to live without fear of being abused or murdered. I am against the use of leather, fur, the use of animals in lab experiments, the use of animals in entertainment acts, etc. It's up to each of us to be responsible and see that our furry family members are spayed or neutered and have their vaccinations. This is a good start on ending the misery of the thousands of unwanted animals that are abandoned, abused and killed each day. So be a responsible adult...allow a woman to have a choice, take care of animals. Remember, we women own our bodies, we should be the ones who determine what happens to, and within our own bodies. Remember, animals can't speak and depend upon us to care for them.

Answer 5

"The fact that PETA kills animals may surprise people. It shouldn't.

Even though animal shelters that do not kill are the newest rage in animal-welfare advocacy, PETA isn't in the animal-welfare business. Its ultimate purpose is not to improve the proper and humane use of animals by people. Rather, it seeks complete and uncompromising "animal liberation," a vastly different concept from animal welfare that demands the end of any and all uses of animals by humans."

Answer 6

"If one is totally for animal rights, then they respect all life no matter big or small that animal is, "

Not true. All it means is that they respect the rights of sentient beings (those that feel pain and pleasure). Since the pre 5 month fetus cannot, the comparison doesn't work.

Answer 7

No...
It's merely Discarded Non-viable Cells vs. Living Animals
At >6.6 B, Propagation Should *No Longer* Be Crucial.

Answer 8

Do I feel that the sense of deja vu you are giving me by repeatedly asking this question is a just reason for me to open a can of woop as* on you?

Aye.

Answer 9

I have a problem with killing animals because they have the ability to feel pain. I believe a bundle of cells does not and I have no problem with getting rid of it.

Answer 10

Why is it contradictory? We are talking about animals that are living outside of their mothers womb. Right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think my cat should be able to terminate her pregnancy if she wants to.