I would like to bring to your attention two common inconsistencies in the pro-choice position. First, the typical pro-choicer refuses to recognize that unborn children deserve protection, yet is adamant in defending animal rights. Isn’t it a bit strange that a person feels so strongly about safeguarding animal life, and has no problem destroying human life in its initial stages of development?
According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, an animal is “any of a kingdom (Animalia) of living things including many-celled organisms and often many of the single-celled ones (as protozoans) that typically differ from plants in having cells without cellulose walls, in lacking chlorophyll and the capacity for photosynthesis, in requiring more complex food materials (as proteins), in being organized to a greater degree of complexity, and in having the capacity for spontaneous movement and rapid motor responses to stimulation.” A human embryo is “an organism in the early stages of growth and differentiation, from fertilization to the beginning of the third month of pregnancy (in humans).” This means that an embryo is, at the very least, a member of the animal kingdom. The fetus is defined as “An unborn offspring, from the embryo stage (the end of the eighth week after conception, when the major structures have formed) until birth,” so at the fetal stage, it is clear that this ‘animal’ is clearly part of the human species.
Upon considering this argument, it is evident that a person cannot be both vegetarian and pro-choice, at least not if they are vegetarian for moral reasons (dietary reasons aside). If you believe it is wrong to kill animals, you must also believe it is wrong to kill unborn children for they fall into the category of animal at minimum. Many people also refuse to eat animals or animal products for religious reasons…but do these people know that many big companies (example: Pepsi) perform research on aborted fetuses to create new flavors or products?
In Québec there has been a recent controversy over Islamic halal meat production. Halal meat requires that the throat of an animal be cut, letting it bleed to death.” The Parti Québecois (PQ) claims that both consumer rights and animal rights are at stake here, and that halal meat production facilities must be thoroughly examined. The PQ stated that "This type of slaughter slams directly against Québécois values." Isn’t it ironic that many Quebecers are concerned about animal suffering and the slaughter of animals, but do not take into consideration the potential suffering inflicted upon human life in every abortion?
A second point I would like to emphasize is the inconsistency in the trend of eating only organic, natural foods while simultaneously consuming contraceptive pills. Many people are rightfully concerned about the levels of synthetic pesticides and chemicals added to nutrition. However, these same people also tend to advocate the use of contraceptives such as the birth control pill, the morning-after pill, IUDs, and condoms. Again, we see a certain level of hypocrisy here. On the one hand, a person may argue that you have to be very careful with the food you put in your body, that it must be healthy and free of rubbish. On the other hand, this same person claims contraceptive pills should be available to all women, even though these synthetic hormones have been shown to produce some negative health problems. Sound familiar?
So next time you meet ‘Ms. Organic-animal-rights-lover’, please don’t forget to ask her what she (or he) thinks about contraceptive pills and abortion. Try to elucidate some of these inconsistencies. It seems that many people are fooled into defending animal rights but not human rights, and emphasize organic eating while willingly polluting their bodies with contraceptives.
|