Why do abortion supporters (and the law) care more for baby animals than baby humans?
Why is it that so many people who support abortion also support the right of baby animals to live? I personally believe that people are created in the Image of God and, therefore, their lives are the most important to protect. (I also believe we shouldn’t needlessly kill animals.) However, I get how people who believe in evolution and think that we are all animals could equate killing an animal baby to killing a human baby. But what I don’t understand is how one can be so wrong and the other so right…
For example, I was at a hearing recently where legal advisors for the pro-life side and the abortion industry were discussing their positions on the proposed Colorado Personhood Amendment. The abortion advocate’s attorney, Lila Bateman, attempted to answer a hypothetical question.
Currently the law provides far more protection to the turtle egg than the unborn human being.
If, instead of the Personhood Amendment being about giving the full protections of life to the unborn, it was about giving all constitutional rights to animals, would this be ok? Ms. Bateman concluded that the amendment concerning animals would be perfectly fine. The difference? Well, an amendment for animals would be granting already recognized rights to an already recognized class. But, horror of horrors, the Personhood Amendment would be granting a completely new right to an unrecognized class. (You can hear the recording of this meeting here.)
I simply don’t understand that kind of inconsistency. Why is it perfectly ok to give ALL constitutional rights—including the right to life—to animals, but not at all ok to give one basic constitutional right to unborn children? Well, ok, maybe two rights to unborn children if you want to say that the right to life and the right not to be killed are two different rights, but I digress.
Another example: Father Frank Pavone has brought attention to a sign he once saw at a Florida beach after giving a pro-life sermon. The sign said: “Attention Beach Users. Help protect endangered sea turtles. Avoid disturbing nesting females. Leave eggs, nests, and hatchlings undisturbed….Sea turtles are protected by county, state, and federal law. Fines up to $20,000.”
Great, so let’s fine people thousands of dollars for even daring to disturb a baby sea turtle, but let’s freely let mothers kill their human children any time they want. The blatant inconsistency is what disturbs me.
Finally, get this: Federal law provides that people can actually go to prison for taking (this includes pursuing, shooting, shooting at, poisoning, wounding, killing, capturing, trapping, collecting, molesting or disturbing) a bald or golden eagle egg. Concerning the penalties, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reports:
The 1972 amendments increased civil penalties for violating provisions of the Act to a maximum fine of $5,000 or one year imprisonment with $10,000 or not more than two years in prison for a second conviction. Felony convictions carry a maximum fine of $250,000 or two years of imprisonment. The fine doubles for an organization.
Please note that these amendments to the federal law protecting eagle eggs were passed the year before Roe v. Wade was decided and the Supreme Court made it legal to kill all unborn children. I’d really like to know why an eagle egg is treated the same as an adult eagle (isn’t it only a “potential eagle”) when an unborn child is treated like a non-human.
Reprinted with permission from LiveAction.org
