Animals vs. People

Ok, here’s something I’ve never quite figured out (maybe you can help me).  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 yesterday 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.

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.

  • notimportant

    It has to do with how endangered an animal is. The theory of the pro-choice folks is that there are plenty of humans on the planet, ergo there is no need to value or protect them. This is how they get onto the ideas of abortion being a good form of population control, that it’s beneficial for ecology, etc. I’m not saying I agree with these ideas, it’s just simply how they view it.

    • Exactly.  You get in trouble for hurting eagles but they’re (the gov’t) is happy with allowing hunting of a deer populations that is bloated and inconvenient (for motorists)

      • notimportant

        Right. That’s the long and short of it, in a nutshell. How’s it feel to be a deer?! (j/k, lol)

    • Briana Shackley

      So population control? The question then is that right and humane? And when we are reducing population there will always be the question of who and what people should we reduce and then we have walked into the world of eugenics.

      • notimportant

        I didn’t say I agreed with those ideas. Anyone can see exactly how it can come down to eugenics, should these ideas be allowed to propagate and be embraced as the new norm. Consequently, this idea of abortion for population control/good of the planet that so many of my friends embrace ironically only lessens all our collective lives. For example: One has an abortion thinking “This is for the good of all of us. For the survival of the human race, for the rationing of resources”. However, she misses the idea that with each abortion, there is an increasing devaluation of life. So her whole reason for aborting in the first place is lost within the disregard of each human being.

        I realize the pro-choice people see their beliefs as caring about those already here, while they see pro-life people caring only about the unborn- but what I now wonder about my pro-choice friends is: How can you care only about one, but not the other? How is one human more sacred or better than the other?

        (I won’t even bring up the topic of a woman’s right to her body with my pro-choice friends- I feel I have absolutely no ammo there! Lol)(I’m the first one in my group of friends/family that has reconsidered my stance, incase you couldn’t guess).

    • Just because an action reduces overpopulation, does not mean it should be justified. Suicides,  homicides, starvation and war, could all be proposed as means to solve the same issue, but I would not agree with enacting said policies to deal with such an issue.

      • notimportant

        Perhaps you’d care to read my reply to Briana? It’s just below here.

  • ChaplainKathleen

    I can tell you that nothing disturbs the average animal-rights activist quite so much as suggesting that humans are equal in value to animals.  Many PETA-types are genuine misanthropes, believing that the human race has so severely harmed the environment that we deserve to become extinct. Google “Voluntary human extinction” to learn more.

    The sad thing is that vegetarianism is a wonderful, hunger-eradicating, environmentally healing philosophy.  And animal welfare (both for pets and farm animals) is a very real issue.  But the extremists on the side of animal RIGHTS (equating animals with humans) have taken control of the public discussion.

    To be pro-life is to be pro-environmental-repair, pro-hunger-eradication, and pro-food-safety.  But we fail to embrace these causes because they are always described in terms of Gaia, radical politics, and utilitarianism (the philosophy behind animal rights, which holds that humans have no value except as producers and consumers).

  • Kirk4Life

    I made a video to that point .
    and made a much more graphic argument on You tube and they blocked it. 

  • Human life on this planet will be reduced to level of non-human type living if the agenda behind these movements continues on its course. Whenever men protect women, cultures flourish; when they treat women like animals, their culture fails. We are descending as a nation because we have failed as men.

     A good man, for instance, can never again become President because both men and women now agree that women should allow childbirth to be an “option.” We are constrained by a superstitious belief that writing laws on paper is the same as writing laws on our hearts. 
    Anyone may resist the law that allows abortion, through non-violent civil disobedience. Can you see such a person ever becoming President? I can’t.

     We are facing some very difficult times because we have failed to believe in the goodness of motherhood. Ironic, because we are now being told by scientists that children in the womb are not parasites, but can assist mothers in becoming healthier by exchanging stem cells with the mother. This is a sign from God that His Plan is benevolent.

     All human persons are born of women. All persons depend on each other most of the time to get by in life. But all persons all the time depend on mothers to even have life in the first place. Put first things first. But we think we can be better than God. Impossible. God comes first.

    • Sjprose

      Thank you sooo much for posting this! It’s about time somebody stands up to say this, though some think it very obvious. Amen to that!!!

    • Anonymous

      Thank you for your wonderful response!  It is perfectly stated and so worthy of acknowledgement. I hope more people read this! 🙂

    • Lilian Rodríguez

      Dear Doc, I like this part of your comments. It’s nice to see there is some good hearted human beings left in this dark world.
      But also, I believe we are accountable to God for our actions in the end. So for me is not so much about feeling good about myself but pleasing the eternal creator God. By trying to water down the truth saying that is almost fine to feel good believing that some part of your child still lives in us is very romantic but not redeeming. Only God can forgive our sins if we earnestly ask Him. He can also help us to forgive ourselves (which can be the hardest part), but is only through Him not us.
      God bless your good intentions. But remember, the path to hell is paved with good intentions. Truth is what will keep us from hell. Truth is knowing the will of God.

  • Ninek

    I can answer that as a former pro-choice, post-abortive, former vegetarian:
    If, after an abortion, I embraced a pro-life position, I would have to admit that I had in fact wrongly participated in the murder of my own child.  Hard to live with, isn’t it?  So, at first, I couldn’t.  Yet, the deed weighed heavily on my conscience.  I sought ways to ‘make it up’ to the world.  Concurrently, I developed an increasing aversion to meat and blood (gee, wonder why?).  I actually thought that if I saved enough animals by being vegetarian, I could ‘make up the kharmic debt’ that I had incurred.  I was also struggling with self-loathing over the abortion, and it’s easy to see how that would extend beyond my sense of self to include other people.

    Ironically, I became active in pro-life work AFTER the death of a dearly loved family member which was followed by the death of my dearly loved pet.  I was still in the throes of grief when the pet died, and at that I barely flinched.  Why?  Because animals aren’t people.  Lovable though they can be, it’s not the same loss at all.  It’s no coincendence that so many post-abortive women coddle cats and small dogs.  They stay small and easy to care for, and they are similar in size and warmth to a human infant.  I do love and respect animals and they should indeed be treated humanely.  But the fact is: animals aren’t people.

    • Ninek, I want to say something very strange to you. I want to say, ” Thank you for choosing life for your child.” Please don’t think this is a flippant remark; I am very serious, and I have a point to make, so please bear with me.

      Science now explains to us that a child in the womb can somehow transfer its own stem cells to the mother, and these parts from the baby to the mother help in healing of, or provide therapies for, any diseases she may have. And these stem cells stay with the mother, whether she carries the baby to term or not. 

      Extend the logic of this. Here’s what I believe: The moment you accepted the facts of your life as a mother of your child, you allowed the life of that child, which is still in you now, to take on a whole new dimension of life within you. You “became” his or her mother again…. this time in spirit and in truth. Your mind, and your spirit, which was shattered, started to come back together again.

      The mystics, Like Hildegarde von Bingen, who will soon become a Saint and Doctor of the Church, told us that “All souls are female to God.” Women, then, are doubly blessed, because they may carry both the sons of men and the Son of God within them, through the Power of the Holy Spirit.

      Only the Holy Trinity can take the evil of abortion and turn it into good. Your experience of soul-healing from your abortion is proof of this claim. May you finish strong in the Lord, and may there be a Great , final reunion in the “afterlife” with your beloved. I put quotations around that word, because, for those being healed now, the afterlife is happening in this life, too. And science is proving it.

      • notimportant

        Bless you, Doc.

      • Relock77219

        Hey Doc, you seem like a smart guy so maybe you can answer this question.

        Abortion laws are as you want them–only YOU know what those laws are.  While these laws are in affect a woman somehow finds a doctor to perform an abortion.  It is performed successfully and both parties part ways satisfied.

        How do you want the government to punish them?

        I look forward to your answer.

    • Erin B.

      Thank you very much for your comment. It reminds us all that everyone has a story, even those on the other side of the issue. We should never forget that fact, always respect the person, even if we disagree with their position. Peace to you.

      • Ninek

        Thank you Erin and Doc.  You never know, the pro-choicer who argues with you today may be your pro-life team member tomorrow. :>)

    • Oh my. It’s wonderful that you assuaged the guilt you felt from your abortion by working to save animals, but there are many of us who have never had an abortion and still work hard to save animals. The fact that you “barely flinched” when a “dearly loved” pet died is quite curious, but I’m not sure that that’s a reflection of the worth of the animal but your own state of mind and heart.
      For those of us who work for animals for non selfish reasons (i.e. not trying to bribe our consciences), the death of a “dearly loved” pet is a source of grief. No, we don’t think “animals are people” (although, people are a type of animal); but when you “love dearly”, that means something.
      So please don’t make laughable assumptions about animal lovers, or try to apply your particular (dare I say it, very unique) circumstance on the rest of us; we’re not trying to make up for some great evil. Believe it or  not, some people in this world are genuinely compassionate, and don’t like to see the helpless victimized — not because we feel bad about something we’ve done, but out of moral conviction and a desire to make the world a better place.

  • Lon Rinn
  • Tom

    You have constructed your argument on a false premise. You attempt to equate born animals with unborn human fetuses.

    We don’t kill baby animals and we don’t kill baby humans.

    It is illegal to kill some animals and it is illegal to kill people.

    If a pet owner finds out that their pet may die due to a pregnancy issue they will generally terminate the fetuses the pet is carrying.

    If animals were capable of enough thought and communication then they might also seek abortion in some instances, who knows.

    In the case of turtles, they may or may not want their eggs terminated, we can’t communicate with them. Humans are capable of enunciating their desired choice.

    • Grace Garner

      Turtle and eagle eggs aren’t “born”…

      • Tom

        Correct. Development within a turtle or eagle egg is biologically equivalent to development within a womb. “Birth’ is when the egg hatches.

        What’s your point?

        • Briana Shackley

          You said the equation to unborn humans to born animals was incorrect the article equates sea turtle and bald eagle eggs to unborn humans. So what is your point now that your original point was proven false?

        • Stitzelfritz

          The point is that fines are levied and jail time is threatened when a turtle or eagle egg is disturbed.  Why, if it’s ‘only’ the equivalent of a baby in the womb?  We should be able to stop on all the turtle eggs we want.  After all, it’s not technically a turtle yet since it’s not hatched, following pro-choice logic. And to extend that logic further, it should be okay to pull those little baby turtles out of their shells and smash them with our car tires if we wish, since at the time they weren’t supposed to have been hatched yet anyway.  Right?

          • Anonymous

            It is illegal to stomp an egg without the turtle mother’s permission; just as it is illegal for an abortionist (or anyone else for that matter) to remove a baby from a human mother’s womb against her will. Since we obviously can’t understand turtles, I don’t think that law will change anytime soon. So I’d say that law is actually pretty consistent.

    • Kirk4Life

      I do not think the premise is false – the fetus is a human being.check out this 50 year old 16mm footage and tell me they aren’t.   They rube a hair on a fetus to see if it reacts as we watch it die in a petri dish – if not a human what is it? 

    • I do not understand your thesis. If you are saying human baby is not fully human until birth, the same as how turtles are not turtles until hatched, you are wrong. To quote the Association of Pro-Life Physicians”
      “That life is unquestionably human. A
      human being is a member of the species homo sapiens. Human beings are
      products of conception, which is when a human male sperm unites with a human
      female oocyte (egg). When humans procreate, they don’t make non-humans like
      slugs, monkeys, cactuses, bacteria, or any such thing. Emperically-verifiable
      proof is as close as your nearest abortion clinic: send a sample of an aborted
      fetus to a laboratory and have them test the DNA to see if its human or not.
      Genetically, a new human being comes into existence from the earliest moment of

      Additionally, if an attacker assaults a pregnant mother and damages her child, he is charged with manslaughter by United States law. The United States government agrees, in part, unborn babies are human unborn babies.

    • Aj

      “We don’t kill baby animals and we don’t kill baby humans.” By your logic, why then do we fine or criminally prosecute someone who disturbs or destroys an eagle egg, but propose that childbirth is a “choice”? You are right in one regard – it would be a grossly false premise to equate an unborn animal with an unborn human. Without exception, a human life, created in God’s image, is of greater value than the life of an animal. Aborting an unborn child is taking a human life, which is no different than killing an infant.

    • Guest

      an animal is not on the level of a human unborn baby so this argument is not valid – an unborn baby sleeps, dreams, drinks, hiccups, responds to touch, feels fear, is startled by sounds, soothed by music and the mothers voice, is defensive of its own body (ever seen the silent scream video??) How can this be less than an animal to you? The problem is – when something is out of sight we class it as nothing but if that grew outside of the womb you would soon see and never argue again that this little life is worthless or that we have the right to kill it.

  • Sparky

    I can hardly improve on Tom’s comments, but since you seem to take every opportunity to make a point of your role as a “legal” advisor, I’ll try just to amplify his point rather than to improve on it.  First, our laws cover the behavior of people not animals – so there is no law that would prevent an eagle from killing another eagle or a turtle from killing another turtle – that would be even more absurd than your premise.  Second, your conclusion that a fetus enjoys (or should enjoy) constitutional protections apart from its mother flows from your personal faith not from the law be it either of men or of the physical universe.  So once you put your statement of faith aside, which by definition has no basis in fact, then you must also put aside your conclusion and your premise.

    I would have thought that you would have covered that in your legal studies…

    • Briana Shackley

      The article states humans harming sea turtle eggs or bald eagle eggs, so the law governs humans actions to both animals and other humans. Abortion is an act of one human on another human, so this law governs humans on humans. And while a fetus cannot state that it is happy being alive does boes not hold a lot of weight really. Because they lack the capacity to communicate their feelings to us or even if they do not have those feelings does not giveus the right to kill them, as an example we do not kill special needs individuals for thos same reasons. Also there is evidence that fetuses will mive away from an abortionistsl instruments indicating in the instictual sense it does not want to be removed,killed, watch Silent Scream.

      • Sparky


        Tell me this – on what chromosome does the soul reside?

        • The concept of a soul is not scientific. Red herring.

  • Jade

    Abortion is a personal choice, it’s not up to you to decide if it’s right or wrong.  When you are pregnant and you don’t want it, then you can decide what to do. In my opinion, abortions are verry personal and people don’t want it shared with the world and don’t want people saying they are evil because they got one.  Really our population is way over rated, give some rights to the poor animals jeez!. 

    • Correct you are. One other decision extremely personal is a man’s sexuality. If this man sees a young teenaged girl whom he abruptly desires, it is a private affair, and he probably does not “Want it shared with the world.” He should be allowed to make love to this girl, with or without her permission, without “people saying they are evil.” After all, it’s not up to you or me to decide what is “right or wrong.”

    • Jay

      So If I was to kill someone because I didn’t want them around, would it be my personal choice to not want it shared with the world? You make no sense.

    • Amy

      Jade, are you really serious??  Kill humans, because of the population, but “give some rights to the poor animals?”  That is a deeply disturbing way of thinking.

  • both are wrong killing a baby and an animal, note that the bible was written by one creation of the lord, but also that we are not the only smart things. Humans are smart but only to a certain point, animals have the same. The lord gave all of his creations life for a reason but also knowledge and understand how to live perfectly and in balance, he then left it to us to see what we would do, all of us, and how we would live. 

  • Renee

    both of the animal arguments in here are a little silly considering they are both endangered species. there are 7 BILLION people in the world. so yeah, i think having those laws against killing or harming nearly EXTINCT animals makes perfect sense honestly.

  • pat

    bottom line is…the decision of the mother not to ‘want’ the child, therefore making it
    justifyable to nix it.  It’s the mother’s right that makes that decision and OK’s the right to kill baby…….and another mother’s
    right to keep it…therefore if she and baby are shot dead…two lives are taken and the killer
    is held for murder.  I know it’s stupid and evil…Whom ever made this the rule is evil..

  • Correct you are–it is not up to us to decide what is right or wrong. Something else that’s a personal choice is a man’s sexuality. If this man sees a young teenaged girl and strongly desires her, it is a personal decision for him to make love to her, with or without her permission. After all, we don’t decide what can be right or not.

    • Anonymous

      I saw a poster on Live Action I think.. a picture of a baby in the womb..the caption? “Pretend I”m a tree and save me.”

      • It just reminds me of the Casting Crowns’s song “While you were Sleeping”: “United States of America
        Looks like another silent night
        As we’re sung to sleep by philosophies
        That save the trees and kill the children”

    • Lionel

      While I agree trees are nowhere near as valuable as a human, we have to realize that deforestation is a real thing; especially in some third world countries. It is important to support companies who replant what they tear down, and encourage those who don’t. We only have one planet to live on, and we should take care of it. 

  • CSW

    It would be nice for some people to realize that yes, it is a choice. The choice is to use protection or not have sex, or to be adult and prepared to face the responsibliity that a life could be created as a result of your actions. That is the choice. It should not be a choice to make a child’s life end at the hands of a parent who was not prepared to be a parent.

    • JC

      If you have sex, use “protection”, and still end up with the baby you tried to “protect” yourself from, that’s no excuse to kill him or her either.

  • Killing an unborn child, as if it had no value, while placing a value on animal life makes no sense whatsoever.  All life is has value and should be respected, but humans far more than animals.  However, we have a new opportunity to make a change to the illogical laws that we live under.  If you value unborn human life, please sign the petition at:  Your signature must be validated, either with a donation (Minimum $1) or you may sign free-of-charge on paper.  Please sign and ask your friends to do the same.

  • JillR112

    Sometimes I wonder if some people who bring up
    things like overpopulatiion as a justification for abortion are just trying to sound noble when what they really care about most is simply having abortion available.

  • Sara


  • Shachar508

    I agree with everything you say.  I also want to point out that there are a good number of us who are vegan and don’t believe in killing animals and are also very pro-life.  The two aren’t mutually exclusive and believing that all creatures should be respected and protected does not mean that we believe that humans are no more than animals.  You didn’t say any of this, but it is a common perception I’ve found within the pro-life community which frustrates me.  I am a dedicated pro-life activist and also a vegan and environmentalist.  

    • Claudia

      Thanks for this comment. I agree 100%. In fact, my becoming a vegan and working to protect defenseless animals is what brought me over to the pro-life side. It became clear to me that holding pro-choice views while believing in animals rights and adhering to a cruelty-free diet, is hypocritical and contradictory. I, too, hope the pro-life community recognizes that we exist and can be strong, useful allies in the pro-life cause.

  • Deb

    Doc is very right in the statement that “we have failed to believe in the goodness of motherhood.”. At the lunch table with my co-workers every time some one at the table mentions a mom who has more than 4 children negative exclamations resound among my co-workers. It drives me crazy. I mostly sit, silent in discouragement. God forgive me for my lack of speech.

  • Anonymous

    Great thread! I Believe that the writer is trying to encourage people to think about the modern worlds contradictory culture. We can help a starving sick animal for. 52cents a day or a starving sick child 20cents a day….what’s wrong with this picture? If 40% of Bald eagle mothers in a given National park were inexplicably pushing their eggs out of their nest, what woulld we do…? Well, we would spend a Billion dollars studying the phenomena desperately trying to find it’s cause. “What could be so terrible, that eagles are exterminating their own kind?” After year’s of media hysteria and all of the world being glued to “eagle cam’s” 24/7….we would discover some “posion” in the environment was causing the self -exterminations. Much like DEET in the environment that caused the decreased populations of nearly every preditory bird on the planet, there were warning signs, we ignored them because “there are enough eagles in the world”. It’s time we look at our culture as it REALLY IS. 40% of pregnancies in New York City end in abortion. New York City, the city once know as the capital of opportunity for immigrants, now has the highest abortion rate? We need to ask ourselves on both sides “what is really causing this?”we are all to blame one way or another. If we do not one day we may wake up , like the eagles, and find we have forceably pair off human beings to procreate. How does one of the only species on earth that actually activley “chooses” when and who they engage in sexual activity with end up with so many “unwanted pregnancies”?

    • Anonymous

      Thank you!  Just the point I wanted to make.  Why are we shocked and horrified to see mother dogs eat their newborn pups sometimes?  As you said, we would spend boatloads of money to find out why mother eagles were pushing their eggs out of the nest.  Why?  Because that is UNNATURAL behavior!  Just as pregnant human mothers killing their own unborn children is unnatural and detrimental! 

      • Anonymous

        Actually…mother dogs eating their newborns is just a part of nature. Most of the time the puppy is dead when they eat it. They do this if they sense there is something wrong with it, or if the mother is lacking nutrients to feed the rest of her puppies. In extreme cases, the mother will eat her puppies because she is not ready to properly nurse and care for them. 

  • Bob Labla

    I apologize in advance to anyone who gets offended by my brand of humor and critical thinking. Now, regardless of right or wrong or anyone’s opinion (which I’m honestly reserving mine), the LOGIC in the article is simply not good and what I wish to criticize. Let me explain: You have to make a DIRECT comparison for something to make sense in any fair sort of way. In this case, there’s the unborn, and the born, and there’s the parents, and the outsiders. You can’t switch them all around! If an eagle wants to get rid of its own unborn egg, then maybe it is its right (I don’t know and that’s not the issue), where if an outsider touches it (without its eagle consent, of course), then it’s different because it’s an outside influence. An intrusion on the eagle, if you will. I won’t preach whether or not I believe in Judgement Day or Eagle Judgement Day, because it doesn’t matter and it’s all opinionated and not relevant to the faults of the article. When a person takes action on their own pregnancy, it’s completely different than somebody else doing it. In this case, the problem is that the debate has never been can somebody else decide to execute an abortion on somebody without their consent. Since that’s never been the debate, the article doesn’t make sense. There are definitely better debates on both sides of the issue than this article. Why? Because some people know that a person smashing an eagle egg is not the same as a person aborting its own unborn, and (for emphasis!) an eagle smashing its egg is not the same as a person involuntarily having an abortion forced upon them by an intruding baby-hating eagle that may or may not be going to Eagle Hell. Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to eat what are surely kidnapped and as of yet unprotected chicken eggs. Let’s call it food for thought. :p

    • bubbalouwee

      Your thinking is flawed.  Everyone is accountable to God and a person’s belief in God does matter and is extremely important.  When faith in God dims, a person’s moral compass gets knocked off course.  God does NOT cease to exist when a person says that they do not believe in God.  It means the person chooses a total distortion of reality, but they are still accountable to God for their actions.  Belief in God is of primary importance, because it will determine the way in which you live your life.  Next, our life has an impact on the lives of others and the lives of others has an impact on our own life.  You make it sound like abortion is a personal choice without outside influences from the world that surrounds women.  Many women have been sold an abortion, but what they wanted was help in bringing their pregnancy to term and their child into the world.  Animals will eat other animals for food.  That is part of the food chain.  But I have NEVER seen an animal of any sort coerce another pregnant animal into killing it’s own unborn baby.  This is only done by humans, and it makes me feel less than human that this is allowable and carried out on a grand scale. 

      • Chesney Saunders

        influence can not MAKE a person have an abortion tho. seriously. every woman has their own mind, their own thoughts. someone can give their opinion on whether or not their friend or w/e should have an abortion but it is ultimately the pregnant womans decision. if someone really wanted “help in bringing their pregnancy to term and their child into the world” thats THEIR decision. someone can NOT tell them they have to have an abortion.

        • bubbalouwee

          People who sit back and do nothing to prevent the slaughter of the innocents can take a share of the responsibility of the holocaust we are living through.  There are plenty in society with blood dripping from their hands, from the communist/socialist who made it legal, to the medical field that carries out the gruesome act, to law enforcement who sits back and arrests pro lifers, to pro choice advocates with their warped sense of values who equate what is legal to what is moral.  May God have mercy on our nation.  God sees everything.  God is just.  Our nation is getting what we deserve.  Terrible leaders and we are sitting on a nuclear arsenal that can blow this world apart several times over.  Please pray to Our Lady of Guadalupe to help mothers choose life.

        • Penny Layne

          By the same token, then, and to be fair about it, someone CANNOT tell another that they have to carry a child to term, either.

  • So murder on one hand is ok, because a person is CHOOSING IT. But it is not ok on the other, bc it is inflicted from an outside source? Ok that make perfect sense. HOW about THIS comparison, in both abortion and animal rights, defenseless creatures are being killed because of HUMANS’ decisions.

    • Bob Labla

      I didn’t express an opinion one way or the other.  It’s a literary tool I like to use called “neutrality.”  I just said that WHO commits the act in each case was not consistent for the purpose of a proper comparative analysis because… *deep breath* willingly doing something to your own egg is not comparable to someone else imposing an outcome on your egg.  You just can’t say those two things are the same.  Like saying, “Why does Bill think it’s ok to shoot his own foot clean off if he wants, yet he doesn’t want people to mess with his dog’s foot.  It’s the exact same thing!”  It doesn’t make any sense unless you’re either not paying attention, or just eager to agree because it comes from someone who is trying to back up an idea you just so happen to support.  Don’t support bad logic (and articles), even if it supports an idea you may hold to be true.  That’s all I’m saying.

  • The Bible makes a clear distinction between human beings and animals. The Bible says “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” (Genesis 1:27). God also gave man dominion over all the animals: Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” (Genesis 1:26). After Adam and Eve sinned and were trying to hide their nakedness from God, the Bible says “And the LORD God made clothing from animal skins for Adam and his wife.” (Genesis 3:21). God was the first to kill an animal. Before Christ’s sacrifice, God commanded that animal sacrifices be made unto Him. It wasn’t until Jesus Christ provided the ultimate sacrifice (the one pure spotless lamb) that animal sacrifice ended. Jesus ate lamb at the Last Supper and fish after His resurrection. These extreme animal rights people are in stark opposition to what God and His word teaches. This is summed up in the book of Romans: “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.” (Romans 1:25)

  • Relock77219

    You asked for an explanation, so here it is.  Something tells me you already know the answer so forgive me if I insult your intelligence.

    The bald eagle and turtle eggs you site are endangered species.  Without legal protection the species will become extinct.  You know this.

    At the risk of comparing humans to endangered species, I will not.  Allowing abortions has nothing to do with humans not being endangered.  In fact, allowing abortions has nothing to do with abortions at all.  Something tells me you know this also.

    People don’t support abortion.  They support a woman’s right to have control over her own body without the government holding a gun to her head and forcing her, against her will, to deliver a baby.  Nobody, and I mean nobody, forces a woman to have an abortion.

    You’re an educated woman, Kristi, don’t act naive.

    Have a good day.

    • “Nobody, and I mean nobody, forces a woman to have an abortion.”

      Nobody should, but that doesn’t mean nobody does. And it may not come of “force” per se, but if the choice is against her free will or against her choice, it is the same.

      • Relock77219

        You’re saying women are being forced, or better stated, coerced.  Cite for me how this is happening and be as specific as possible.

  • Penny Layne

    Hmmmm…I don’t see your point.  The argument doesn’t hold.  While people ARE animals (it is proven via muscular/skeletal blueprint and DNA), people aren’t an endangered species.  Just ask China.  While there is the argument that the Waldorf lineage may die out if the last surviving son or daughter seeks to abort an unborn fetus, or that the Robinson clan may cease to exist on Earth, or that we may lose the brilliance of future great minds if the Eiensteins choose not to pro-create (either by abstinence/birth control or via abortion), we are not looking at a shortage of people animals anytime in the foreseeable future.  I will always uphold a person’s right to choose what happens to their own skin and blood and muscle and bone.  If they want to have offspring, have offspring.  If they want to not have offspring, then don’t.  But sexual need is not a tap one can turn on and off at will, any more than a person’s hunger or need for air.  Sexual need has always and will always be a dominate biological force in our species, as it is for most every other species of animal on the planet.  What we need to focus on with our young is the right to self-stimulate and the right to believe and feel that self-stimulation is OKAY in the absence of a partner (for adults) or while waiting for the right time to participate with a partner (for children).  The urge is going to be there either way.  And with self-stimulation, the urge is quieted for a time, just like food temporarily fills a hungry stomach and air fills the empty lungs for a bit.  The added bonus is that WOW… no chance of pregnancy! 

  • It’s because the green community actually “wants” all of those helpless baby animals, but they deem unborn children as less because they can say that they are (potentially) “unwanted.” It is just sad.

  • Dr B

    But there is a BIG difference between killing animals and killing people.   Yes, we veterinarians are allowed to kill but we have to do it humanely.  If I killed pre-born puppies the way that they kill babies (ie pulling off their limbs one-by-one) I would lose my license as a veterinarian.  ‘We’ are forbidden ethically to do things like that to animals.