Thursday, January 21, 2021

Why it's inconsistent for the Consistent Life Ethic to not support rights to assisted suicide/chosen euthanasia

There's an elephant in the room we need to talk about. Because the Consistent Life Ethic started off in Catholicism (though you can believe in it no matter your religious or political identity), it is said to include not allowing people to have a right to assisted suicide/euthanasia. But here's the thing: The right to live and the right to die are the same right. They cannot be separated. They are two sides of the same coin. It's all about letting others control their own lives. For example, no one is against killing because they think the victim should be forced to live, it's because they understand that that is not anyone else's body or life to take. The reason we have empathy for others who are hurt or killed is because someone else decided to force death on them. So I wanted to quickly go through some reasons as to why I see not allowing people to have these basic rights is unethical and inconsistent with life issues.

Consent is key. Whenever people who are against assisted suicide argue against it, they focus on the people who were forced into it, but what they don't seem to realize is that everyone who supports it agrees with them. Everyone on each side of this issue is in agreement that it is wrong to force, pressure, and coerce people into it, or not give them compassion, support, and other options. Just as everyone is against pedophilia except pedophiles, the only people who support forcing people into it are those who are doing the forcing. People should be given all the love, compassion, support, and knowledge of options possible. But at the end of the day, if nothing is working for them, they should still have their rights.

It's torture. Assisted suicide is talked about in regards to when terminally ill patients have pain that is so extreme that hospice/palliative care and pain meds won't help them. There is a naivety with thinking, "Well you can just give them pain medication and they'll feel better, so they shouldn't have a right to assisted suicide" when the main point is that it is not possible for relieving pain, whether that be with medication or anything else, to work in 100% of cases. There are many times in which the only way pain meds will stop someone's pain is if they are in high enough doses to be lethal. And the ironic thing is that there are some people who argue against these rights but their argument will end with "it is acceptable to give them pain medication that will treat the pain even if it kills them"...but...that's assisted suicide. So sometimes they do agree with us after all, without realizing it. But anyone who says that someone shouldn't be allowed to utilize assisted suicide, therefore being forced to have to suffer extreme pain and agony as they slowly die instead of getting to choose to die quickly and painlessly, is supporting torture.

I don't think anyone except for the most evil unethical people could ever watch someone go through that torture and still say that they should not have a right to quick and painless dying. So my view has always been that those who are against these rights haven't thought about it enough to put themselves in the shoes of others. And when they argue that people shouldn't be forced to help if they don't want to, we again agree. But there are more than enough people who understand that it is literal torture to not allow people to have this right that we wouldn't need those who don't want to contribute, to contribute. 

It's a form of slavery. By that I mean that it treats someone else's body and life as property to be forced to live as others see fit. It takes away someone's rights to their own self, and objectifies them. To get to make your own choices for your own life and how you will live it is the most basic of principles, but those who are against the right to consent to assisted suicide/euthanasia take a stand against this owning of your own life. It is so fundamentally against every other aspect of these people's beliefs that it's truly bizarre. This is something we would expect corrupt rogue military personnel who have caught prisoners of war and want to make them suffer to believe in, not those who believe in a consistent life ethic. To be stuck in a hospital bed in pain because everyone around you thinks that it is necessary for you to not get to choose how you will die can make someone feel hopeless and like a kidnap victim. People have cried out for mercy and their cries aren't listened to because society wants to act like somehow the pain meds they are already being given will help so they should just shut up and give up the will of their lives to others. But these are human beings, not objects.

It's inherently ableist. Those of us who have disabilities are often treated as second class citizens by those who are against these rights, by them advocating for our agency to be taken away. If your answer to the pain of those with disabilities is to say that we do not get to have the right to assisted suicide/euthanasia, all you're doing is dehumanizing us. It goes hand in hand with the ableist idea that anyone who has suicidal ideation must be "not of sound mind." Which is a really easy way to "other" people and not see us as full humans with our own thoughts and outlooks on life, as if everyone has to have the exact same view of their own life as them or else they are "defective" and shouldn't be listened to. 

The idea that we shouldn't allow *those who consent* to something to have the right to consent to it because *others* are forced/coerced/pressured into it makes no sense. It would mean that we have to illegalize sex because people are often forced into it through rape. Opponents of these equal rights often use the slippery slope fallacy as a way to justify taking away rights to those who *do* consent to it. But we can never take away rights from others just because some are being forced into something. The solution to that is to get to the root problem and fight the forcing of it, not fight the consenting to it. If all of the people who were against others consenting to it spent all the energy they use to make sure no one gets to have that right, fighting to make sure no one is pressured into it instead, it wouldn't be an issue.

Wednesday, July 24, 2019

Unconventional Pro-Life Groups

Non-Profit Organizations and social media groups for pro-life feminists:
*Feminists for Life:
*Feminists for Nonviolent Choices:
*New Wave Feminists:
**Feministas De La Nueva Ola: (Grupo Feministas de la Nueva Ola) (Grupo FNO Chile)
*Feminists Choosing Life of New York:
*Women's Rights Without Frontiers:
*Pro-Life Feminist film:
*Pro-Life Women's Conference:
*Susan B Anthony List:
Others: (Pro-Life Feminists) (FEMINISTAS PROVIDA)

Non-Profit Organizations and social media groups for Pro-Life Liberals:
*Democrats for Life of America:
*Pro-Life Democratic Candidate PAC:
*Other: (Pro-Life Democrats of Washington State) (Democrats for Life of America, Mid-Atlantic) (Liberals for a Consistent Life Ethic) (Liberal and Pro-Life) (Pro-Life Progressives) (Prolifers for Bernie)

Atheist/Agnostic/Secular Pro-Life Non-profit Organizations and social media groups:
*Secular Pro-Life:
*Pro-Life Humanists:
*Other: (Atheist and Agnostic Pro Life League) (Agnostics & Atheists Against Abortion) (Humanist Women Against Abortion) (AAPLL Atheists and Agnostics Only) (The Best Secular Pro-Life and Anti-Religious Images) (Secular Pro-Life League) (Atheist and Agnostic Pro Life League: Reincarnated) (Secular Pro-Life Ireland) (Never Alone: Secular Post-Abortive Healing)

For LGBTQIA+ Pro-Lifers:
*PLAGAL - The Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians:
*Other: (LGBT Pro-Lifers)

For Vegan and Vegetarian Pro-Lifers: (Pro Life Vegans) (Vegan Pro-Life Organisation) (Vegans for Pro-Life) (Vegan, Pro-Life, Christians)

For POC pro-lifers: (Black, Woman & ProLife) (National Black ProLife Coalition)

Other pro-life pages that lean toward liberal/pro-woman/secular ideals:
*Rehumanize International:
*Consistent Life:
*All Our Lives:
*Pro-Life San Francisco:
*Other: (Supporters For A Consistent Pro-Life Ethic) (Anti-Abortionists for Greater Pre and Post Birth Funding) (Pro-lifers in favor of Safer Sex, Birth Control, and Sex-Ed) (Pro-Life Nudist) (Pro Lifers For gun control) (Pro Life Pro Vaccine) (Pro-Life Intact) (Human Rights for Born and Unborn) (Intersectional Pro-Life Alliance) (Unconventional Prolifers) (Progressives, Former ProChoice-ers, and Atheists ProLife Alliance) (Handicapped Humans Against Abortion) (Deaf and Hard of Hearing Pro-Lifers) (Pro-Life Rockers.) (Punk Rock & Pro Life) (Pro-Life Artists Unite) (Pro Life Entertainers & Artists) (Pro-Life Pagans, Wiccan's, Witches, and Vodouisants) (Pro-life Satanists, Left-Hand Path Followers, and their allies) (Pro-life Millennials) (sounds like eugenics but ok) (oh, we're killing poor people now? cool, cool...) (Pro-Life Mermaids)

Wednesday, March 7, 2018

If the unborn is a human...

If the unborn is not a human, no justification for abortion is necessary (all abortions would be no different than using a condom and there would be no reason for abortion to be a "tough, gut-wrenching choice that no one wants to make" as a lot of pro-choicers describe it).

However, if the unborn is a human, no justification for abortion is adequate (not the fact that we're poor, not the fact that we're single, not the fact that we have career goals, not the fact that we don't want to be mothers etc. Being labelled as "unwanted" by someone else could never possibly be a reason to kill someone, lest we want to create the world's most totalitarian society.)

Science does indeed tell us that the unborn are distinct living human beings and not just clumps of human cells.

Why a lot of pro-choicers really don't care about women

So I hear myself saying "These people really don't care about women at all!" more and more as I hear pro-choice arguments, I may have even mentioned that before in this blog, so I figured I'd write down why the pro-choice side seems like the "anti-woman" side, and like they really just hate women. Not all pro-choicers are this way (heck some of the ones who are may not even realize this is anti-woman as they could be blinded by the politics of it all and just say/do things because they are so used to hearing it. And perhaps when not dealing with abortion they are pro-woman in certain ways, but the fact is that there are some things they do/say that couldn't be called pro-woman and do seem like a hatred of them), but it's getting harder and harder to find the good ones.

*Only think the choices are get an abortion or be forced to raise a child you don't want with no means

*Act like women who have unplanned and unwanted children will abuse them once they are born (so many people living today weren't wanted/planned but were NOT abused by their parents, because parents don't have an automatic switch to where they just hurt their children if they didn't decide to have them)

*Say that no woman is happy to have an abortion yet really try to make sure a horrible choice no woman wants, sticks around, even at the expense of helping other choices.

*Fail to mention that most abortions aren't by women who don't want their babies, but rather women who think that they can't do it because of lack of choices or not knowing of their choices. They frame abortion as if you can't force a woman to bear an unwanted child, and all children should be wanted, when most abortions occur with the women wanting their children even if it was unexpected but not knowing how to be the mothers they want to be.

*Force women to choose between a career or school and a child, and then call that liberation.

*It says that women can't do it all. They can't be career women or school women and mothers. They apparently aren't strong enough to do so and shouldn't be trusted to do so.

*Doesn't trust women to make their own decisions by refusing to give them proper info and facts of other choices, the unborn, and abortion, ensuring that they aren't fully informed before making such a big decisions and thus ensuring they will most likely regret it as they made a decisions they weren't informed on. Not only that but it makes women illiterate with the info surrounding all of this. They hide the humanity of the unborn and are against women seeing ultrasounds before the abortion because they know that if they have that knowledge, they won't go through with it.

*They don't let people actually offer women other options. When sidewalk counseling, even if they are being nice and respectful and honestly offering women help, pro-choicers will try and drown them out and walk the woman to the abortion clinics while telling them not to listen to the people trying to offer them help. Here is a video of a pro-choice activist who posed as a woman seeking an abortion and having someone escort her into an abortion center, who shared the video on youtube with her and her boyfriend's commentary, saying she was "terrified" by the pro-life sidewalk counselors, who allegedly "bullied and intimidated" her, and they omitted the commentary the pro-life sidewalk counselor gave so you don't actually hear it but rather are left to assume what they say is true . Want to know what the pro-lifer actually said?...

"Good morning, my name's Kelly. I'd like to talk to you this morning before you go in to have an abortion. On the corner, just past the abortion clinic, on the corner is A Woman's Choice, and you can get a free ultrasound. We want to help you, so whatever brings you in here for this abortion today, we want to help you. We have, um, adoption counseling, financial counseling, free ultrasounds... whatever you need. We have free maternity homes, anything you need. Ma'am, what you have in you is a son or a daughter. It was decided at conception whether you were carrying a son or a daughter. The baby inside you [unintelligible] is still valuable and precious. And we're just [unintelligible]."

*In a feminist society where they successfully made abortion legal and have kept it legal and they have gotten so many other things for women, they haven't done a lot to secure more rights/options for pregnant women and mothers and children. They could have easily done this had they actually cared about women. It tends to be the pro-lifers who do this.

*Forces women to wage war on their very own children, and makes a conflict between women and unborn children.

*By saying women only choose abortion when they feel like they have no other choice and no woman goes into an abortion clinic happy to abort because it isn't about wanting to kill but rather feeling like they have no other options, and then say that that choice should be an option, you are forcing them to choose that, and showing that YOU are the ones who think women can't choose for themselves. You are giving them no choice.

*Make women think they need abortion in order to be equal, even though they also say that it is the woman's choice and men can't have a say, so men already don't have abortion rights

*Refuse getting abortion clinics up to standard, like this article states, if abortion clinics actually cared about women, they would already have these standards in place without the government having to get involved. The abortion industry doesn't care about women, they care about money.

*Refuse to acknowledge all the women who have died in "safe and legal" abortions

* Refuse to acknowledge all the women who regret their abortions and have suicidal thoughts and tendencies and PTSD, and that it is bad for the women as well as the unborn

*Refuse to tell their pro-choice advocates about the facts, thus they feel tricked when they realize it and tend to turn pro-life.

*Refuse to let women choose to be pro-life. They silence pro-life women constantly.

*Refuse to let female fetuses have the choice of life

*Refuse to be against or stand up to sex-selective abortion killing women in the womb

*The whole pro-choice thing makes women put their children in the same spot women were in previously. This is not only horrible for their own children, it degrades women. The first wave of feminism fought against women being seen as "not persons" and the second wave turned women into the people claiming that their children were "not persons." It's the ultimate irony.

*Even beyond all of that, we are hearing more stories of guys coercing or forcing women to miscarry or have abortions, even without them knowing it by slipping them the abortion pill, guys telling people how to convince a girl to get an abortion, or with the "bro-choice" crowd, saying a good reason to be for abortion is so that you can have more casual sex. Sometimes bad guys use "pro-choice" to their advantage to get women to have the abortions they want.

Wednesday, November 15, 2017

Pro-Choice Violence.

This is no where near all the stories but I wanted to at least show what I have collected so far.
--Jim Poullion murdered by Harlan James Drake:
--Anne Gordon murdered by Eric Paul Henry

Derrick Doss waving a gun: (Pat McKinley on the LAPD's Torture of Pro-Life Protesters with Nunchucks)

Saturday, September 16, 2017

Why Abortion is a Tool of the Patriarchy

Men often pressure, force, or coerce women into abortions. They threaten us into it or otherwise try and manipulate us. Men (not all but too many to not talk about) use abortion as a way to use women as reusable and disposable sex objects so that they can have sex with them all they want without having to take care of their responsibilities. There are even movements called "bro-choice" and “men for choice” that ironically point this out, with "bros" talking about how abortion is good for them specifically because of that reasoning....and somehow the “no uterus no opinion” idea conveniently doesn’t apply to “pro-choice” men. It treats our bodies as garbage disposals; as in, what you put into us can just be chopped up into little bits and the bloody mess taken out so that you can use us over and over again. Abortion is a deadbeat dad's favorite thing.

Rapists use it to continue to rape and control their victims, as it gets rid of the “evidence” (not only DNA evidence to prove he was the rapist on trial, but suddenly having a child is evidence that she is being raped to everyone around her as well) and thus they can get away with raping her for longer, and pressuring her to abort is another way to control her too. This happens with standard rape and statutory rape as well, and some abortion clinics have even lied about the age of statutory rape victims or didn’t contact social services when she comes in with an older man, so that they can give underage girls abortions. Alice Paul, the feminist who created the Equal Rights Amendment act (ERA) has stated, “Abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women.” There are so many ways in which that rings true.

Men also have killed many women for not aborting, or otherwise harmed them by throwing them down stairs etc. to try and cause a miscarriage, or slipped them the abortion pill without them knowing it. Without men and the patriarchy, abortion wouldn't exist. Not only that but it was the men of NARAL who sold abortion to feminists and the world in the late 1960s by making up lies. One of those men, the abortion doctor Bernard Nathanson, flat-out admitted that they lied. And it was men who were the ones to vote on Roe V Wade and men have always been the abortion doctors, and prey on women by telling them that their children are not children but clumps of cells etc., so that they can get their abortion dollars. Some of them have admitted they make lots of money from abortion.

Also, male bosses make women feel like they can't be mothers while working and that abortion is what they should choose, which is just another way to coerce. Same with being single or poor or going to school or what have you. Women get abortions because of the mother shaming society we live in making them feel like they have no other choice. If men could get pregnant, abortion wouldn't exist, because people don't tell men that they can't be career men and fathers at the same time yet women get constantly told that we can't be career women and mothers at the same time so abortion is necessary for our success. This is one of those tactics that those men from NARAL used to get support for abortion. It's just sad that it worked.

The abortion-and-pro-choice-industry tells us that the wombless male body is normative and that in order to have equal rights to men and compete in a male-dominated world, we need have abortion so that we aren't "bothered" and "bothering them" with the concept of having children. Instead of raising women to the equal rights level of men as we are, we are taught to get rid of what makes us uniquely female because it is a "burden", and that we should lower ourselves to what we deem as the worst kind of men--deadbeat dads. Instead, we should be empowering pregnant and parenting women, and telling them we CAN do it. You CAN be pregnant or a mother while going to school, you CAN be pregnant or a mother while working, you CAN be pregnant or a mother while a teenager, you CAN be pregnant or a mother while single, and you CAN be pregnant or a mother while poor. Rosie the riveter is a great example of the "yes we can" concept yet somehow when it comes to pregnancy we have turned it into "No you can't, have an abortion." Having kids does not mean you have to give up a life worth living, yet that is what the abortion industry wants us to believe, but it goes against everything feminism stands for.

There are many women who regret their abortions, and have depression from it, PTSD from it, suicidal tendencies from it, or have actually killed themselves from it. You can find their videos on youtube or their stories in writing, just by looking up "I regret my abortion" or "abortion regret" on google or youtube. Because women are basically told in various ways that we have no other choice to abort yet people turn around and say it is somehow “our choice” when debating abortion, we are the ones who end up as the scapegoats and thus have to deal with all the heaviest feelings from it. We are told we can’t regret it because it was “our choice” despite the fact that we choose it because we are told we have no choice. The men who pressure us into it get out without having to deal with it because it reinforces old-fashioned stereotypes that anything having to do with babies is “women’s work.”

There are so many women who feel this way that there are endless amounts of organizations around to help women with post-abortive regret, which wouldn't be able to be around if women never regretted it, yet these women constantly get ignored so that the abortion industry can act like women rarely regret it to keep women supporting pro-choice politicians and coming into the abortion clinics and giving them their hundreds of dollars for each abortion. Women's voices of regret are being swept under the rug like crazy. That is what misogyny looks like. Although not all men do the things I am describing in this article, and in fact abortion can hurt men and make them regret lost fatherhood just like many women regret their abortions as well, it still happens far too much.

Also, it truly shows we are oppressed when people act like somehow we need to have a right to treat our children the way we have been treated by men, by oppressing them and treating them as our property to be disposed of as we see fit, and instead of giving us actual help for our situations. Offering abortion is an easy way for people to blow off our problems and act like they helped us. An abortion doesn't make a poor woman not poor or a raped woman un-raped or an abused woman not abused etc., it just throws women right back into these situations after she leaves the clinic. All it gives her is a dead child on top of the problems she has, it doesn't help the problem at all. It doesn't solve the root problem.

On top of all of that, sex selective abortion kills females in the womb just for being females because people want sons. This happens in various countries including our own but in the ones where it is most prevalent, there is a gap between the amount of men and women, as a decent chunk of women were killed in the womb. This has led to young women being kidnapped, raped, trafficked, and forced into marriages because the men of the population have a lack of women to choose from in terms of coupling. Pro-lifers believe in women's rights, we just go one step further and say that ALL women should have rights, not just the born ones, for we truly don't have rights if they don't start when we first exist. Women deserve better than all of this. We deserve better than being given a bad choice that no one really wants and we basically just choose because we are told we need to choose it. No woman walks into an abortion clinic happy to do it. This is something that both pro-choicers and pro-lifers agree on. We just need to understand that that horrible choice that no one likes or really wants shouldn't be held up as an example of wonderful women's rights. It's something that comes from our oppression and is something we should always be fighting to end, because it hurts us too.

All of these things are why when I was 14 and found out what abortion was, I was pro-life *on the specific basis* that I am a liberal feminist. I started off by having many feminist reasons to be against abortion before I could even know the politicizing strategies of each side. And when I started to hear the stereotypes that abortion was supported by feminists and opposed by those who aren't, I automatically assumed people were joking, because that would never make any sense. Abortion is pure violence, on our children and us. It would never fit in with feminism. It is just more evidence that we are oppressed.

For more information on Pro-Life feminism, google or facebook search (or enter in the websites of) out the organizations
Feminists for Life :
Feminists for Nonviolent Choices :
New Wave Feminists:
Feminists Choosing Life of New York Action:
and Pro-Life Feminists:
These are the organizations that have helped me realize that I am not alone and that Pro-Life feminism has existed since feminism began, as it started off Pro-Life to begin with. All the early feminists, such as Susan B Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Alice Paul, Victoria Woodhull, Dr. Elizabeth Blackwell, Mary Wollstonecraft etc. etc. and even Margaret Sanger (the founder of Planned Parenthood) were pro-life. It was the men from NARAL who made up lies that turned some of the feminists pro-choice. Let's not let men get the better of us, and return to understanding that the violence of abortion is not fit for feminism and a world where we champion peace and equal rights. It is the destruction of everything we stand for. It is the destruction of us.

Wednesday, September 28, 2016

Parallels of Veganism and Pro-lifeism

When talking about the comparisons of the issues of abortion and animal farming/exploitation, it seems that there are two similar sides that we can look at. The similarities between vegan ideas/arguments and pro-life ideas/arguments, and the similarities between animal consuming ideas/arguments and pro-choice ideas/arguments. Similarities between veganism and pro-lifeism: *Both are centered around the idea of respecting life, especially of that of the particularly innocent, vulnerable, voiceless, helpless, defenseless etc. *Right to life is present in both. With pro-lifeism, of course the unborn child is being killed so a focus is put on the fact that they have a right to not be killed and to continue their lives, and with veganism, animals get killed and thus a focus is put on them having a right to not be killed and to continue their lives. *Right to not be harmed and bodily autonomy, as well as the right to not be seen as property to be disposed of as one sees fit, is present in both. In an abortion, the child is dismembered with medical tools or sucked apart or poisoned etc. This harms them and takes away their bodily autonomy as their bodies are being harmed and destroyed. They are considered their parents property and they are at the will of their parents. With animal farming/consuming/exploiting etc., there are many different ways in which the bodies of animals are harmed and they are treated as objects and their bodily autonomy is taken away as well, whether that be abuse like being beaten over the head in some factory farms, or the stress of being artificially inseminated and having to give birth and being constantly milked, to going through training in circuses etc. etc. They are literally considered the property of farmers and are at the will of those who farm them, train them, or are otherwise considered their owners. *Both point out that if one can't stand to look at gruesome pictures that are the end result of what they are supporting (abortion pictures/slaugtherhouse pictures), then they don't want to be supporting it in the first place. The idea is that if one finds it offensive then you are saying that something you support is why are you supporting it? *Both see the genocide that is happening right before our eyes, and understand that it is prejudice and oppression. Both have trouble understanding why after learning our lesson with the past genocides, we still continue with this one. Some on each side make comparisons to the holocaust and slavery/racism. *Both mention that abortion or animal consuming/using aren't necessary, and talk about the other options that one has. For why should we go out of our way to cause all this death and destruction when we don't have to? For abortion, there is adoption (of which you can have open, closed, or semi-open, and you can find some that are free too), safe-haven/safe-surrender/baby-moses laws which let you leave the child at any police station, hospital, or fire department, no questions asked, kinshipcare or guardianshipcare, where you give the child to a family member or close friend to be raised, and this can be long-term or short-term, or a ton of options for help if the woman does think she can be a parent with the right help, that goes into various avenues such as financial, daycare, baby drives, housing, rights for pregnant women at school or in the workplace and things to make it easier like desks that fit the stomachs of pregnant women or set ups for her to work or learn from home etc. etc. etc. There's also talk of artificial wombs. With veganism, there's literally a vegan version of everything. There are tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of edible plants that we have discovered so far and literally a vegan version of everything. If it's possible to make it non-vegan, it's possible to make it vegan. There are tons of vegan options at every store and you can veganize fast food meals as well. Those who are poor can be vegan, as many of us are. There are vegan leathers and soaps and this and that and the other. *Right to continue living so as to continue to use the other rights and choices they would have is present in both. Pro-lifers often talk about how the most important right is the right to life, as all other rights would be meaningless without it as you wouldn't be alive to get to use them. Vegans often point out that animals are here for their own reasons, just like us, to have their own lives and do their own things. They aren't here to be objects for the use of humans. That brings me to a related issue on the reverse... Similarities between non-veganism and pro-choiceism: *Both use a "choice" argument, and forget the victim at hand and their choices, and act like the perpetrator needs to have a choice to harm the victim. With animal using and consuming, they think it has to be the ones partaking in the using or consuming that need to have a choice to do so. Often you'll l hear something like, "It's my choice to eat meat. You can't infringe on other people's choices. If you don't eat meat, that's your own choice, but you can't tell me what to do." With abortion it's the same thing, with the mother getting to choose to take her unborn child to a facility to be dismembered and killed. "It's my choice to get an abortion. You can't infringe on other people's choices. If you wouldn't get an abortion, that's your own choice, but you can't tell me what to do." *Similarly, both use the bodies of those committing the act instead of the bodies of the victims to act like somehow disregarding one's bodily autonomy is the bodily right of another. For abortion, "It's my body, my choice." and sometimes "If it's in my body I can kill it." For animal consuming/wearing, "It's my body, my choice. I get to choose what goes in/on my body." Both actions require harming and killing someone else's body, but only the bodies of the ones doing said harming will ever be paid attention to for these sides. Forgetting the victim and acting like it's the other party that is in the wrong because they are infringing on the rights of those taking away the rights of others is an old way to pass off discrimination. *Both use overpopulation as an excuse to kill the victims. With abortion, they say that humans are overpopulated and thus we shouldn't have anymore, as well as that since it's overpopulated, they'll have a horrible life so we might as well not allow them to exist so as to spare them a life in the overpopulated world. With animal consuming/using, they say that animals are overpopulated so we need to kill them so that their overpopulation doesn't get in the way. *Both use things such as pain and sentience and intelligence and size as a way to belittle the victims and excuse killing and harming. They say that those who have yet to be born can't feel pain, aren't conscious, aren't intelligent, are so small, and that that therefore makes them lesser than us and so we can kill them. They say that those of other species can't feel pain (the classic "fish don't feel pain" myth for example), aren't conscious, aren't intelligent, animals like insects are so small, and that that therefore makes them lesser than us and so we can kill them. Both of these not only are incorrect *at the very least* for some of those who have yet to be born and some animals, but also forget that there are many born humans, such as infants and other children and those along the wide spectrum of disabilities and diseases who also fall in those categories, yet they understand then that those things don't matter at all. How can you argue that if one isn't intelligent, they can be killed, if you understand that a born human who is mentally challenged needs even more protection than the average person? It's a might makes right attitude as well. "I'm bigger than you/smarter than you etc., so since I can kill you because you have less abilities than me, I should be allowed to have that choice." Discriminating against a group based off of their abilities, or Ableism, is another classic way to pass off discrimination, and is closely tied to eugenics. It's been said that you have to look at someone's differences and act like that makes you better in order to get people to successfully oppress a group. For the unborn it's dehumanizing, for other animals it's speciesism. *Both use the arguments that these things have been happening for so long/are natural, and that people will still do them even if it's outlawed. Abortion is ancient so women will still find a way to do it they say. Animal eating is ancient and what we need to be doing they say. God put animals on earth for us to use they say. God aborts babies all the time they say.
*Both try to brush off the act by talking about the fact that it is legal, as if somehow something being legal therefore makes it ok, or that somehow you shouldn’t advocate for the other side as if things can’t change from legal to illegal. *Both try to find ways to defend at least some abortion or animal killing/harming. With abortion they say "well it's ok if it's below a certain amount of weeks/well it's ok if she was raped/well it's ok if the child has a disability etc." With animal killing they usually go for the ones labelled "humane" "organic" "grass fed" cage free" free rage" without realizing the problems with these either, or specify specific animals. Or they'll just say "I wouldn't eat a dog but a pig is different." *Ultimately, both look at the differences we have from these groups rather than our similarities and use that as a way to exert power and control over them and "other" them to the point of death, dismemberment, and exploitation.