Why Gun Abolishment is needed for the Consistent Life Ethic and for Leftist Values

There's a bit of hypocrisy with the CLE and Leftist spaces not talking that much about gun abolition despite support of guns fundamentally clashing with all of the other values. Though there is a rising number of people who are because they are fed up with the amount of mass shootings in the US. But here are some of the reasons gun abolition fits in well with leftistism and the consistent life ethic.

Guns are the ultimate way to value property over people. When people say they would shoot someone who was trying to take their gun, they are showing that an object means more to them than someone else's life. They are putting the right to life below the right to own property. They are an example of someone who shouldn't own a gun because they think it's ok to kill someone so easily.

Thousands of accidental shootings happen in the US each year from guns. This is something that will never be able to go away based on giving people mental health because they were unintentional. It also means that gun control won't work in this area because someone could pass all the checks and still accidentally shoot someone. This happens in many different ways too...adults accidentally shooting kids, kids accidentally shooting adults, guns malfunctioning, cats and dogs accidentally stepping on guns and setting them off etc. Those lives shouldn't be cast aside as necessary casualties because people don't want to give up their guns. 

The Gun Industrial Complex makes a lot of money off of the sales of guns, accessories, hunting licenses etc. There are many different companies who have their hands in the pot when it comes to guns. The NRA is the head of the gun lobby and makes sure that guns remain legal because it's a multi billion dollar industry, bringing in tens of billions of dollars per year.

There are a million different ways to defend yourself and the idea that we have no other choice but to use guns to defend ourselves is manipulative and comes from the gun industry saying that because they just want to make money, just like how the abortion industry manipulates people into thinking they need abortion in order to have freedom. It's a capitalistic effort. People defend themselves in many different ways and with many different things on a constant basis and yet the gun lobby makes sure that the concept of self-defense is tied to guns so that people feel like they *need* guns...like they have no other choice but to buy guns or else they'll die. As we have seen with other subjects, industries make people feel like they have no other choice but to do something because it's the easiest way to make sure they do it and help pump billions into the industry.

This has resulted in there being over a hundred million more guns than people in the US. "More guns" can never be the answer when there is an excess of guns already. We have too many guns to even use. Because of the capitalist effort of the Gun Industrial Complex convincing more and more people to support guns so that the industry turns a profit, even when it goes against their other values, guns now outnumber the number of people that can use them. We need to go after the manufacturers who are preying on the vulnerable to get them to support guns so that they can turn a profit with their blood money.

Due to the capitalistic efforts of the gun lobby and industry, gun culture here in the USA is extreme and that's why so many people support guns here. They wouldn't had they been raised somewhere else, which we have seen by the rest of the world being extremely confused and scared by our gun culture. People are afraid to travel here because of the huge amount of gun support. Gun culture is a systemically oppressive power structure. It's an extreme form of toxic masculinity. It's treated as normal and kids are raised to believe that buying a gun is no big deal. Parents teach their kids how to shoot at young ages so that they think that's just what people do.

Guns cause a lot of trauma for groups that are most affected by them, such as women and POC and LGBTQIA+ folks. Women and female bodied people are many times more likely to die in domestic violence situations with a gun in the house. POC are more likely to die by the police shooting them than white people are. The answer to the police or the government having guns is not to make it easier for them to have guns, it's to call for disarmament and abolishment.

But instead of calling to disarm the police, people call to support more guns. When we are told that we have to use that which oppresses us, we are being oppressed further. It's like telling us that to fight rape, we have to become rapists ourselves. That harms us as well. When you, your friends or family members, or your minority group has been affected by gun violence, it is traumatizing to see people support guns. I love orgs like Gays Against Guns because they help show that minority groups, which are disproportionately victims of gun violence, need to stand up against guns, not support them. The systems that oppress us want us to support guns so that we will continue to be oppressed. It allows easier access for our oppressors to get their hands on guns.

The second amendment needs to be repealed because it is an unjust law. Just because a law exist doesn't mean it should continue to exist. We know this because Roe v Wade is an unjust law that was repealed for being unjust. There's no good reason to own a gun. Hunting animals is wrong, and there are a million different ways to defend yourself outside of guns. There are even various other objects to use for target practice. They're not needed even if the Gun Industrial Complex tries to manipulate us into believing they are.

The idea that banning guns won't stop people from getting guns is no different from the idea that banning abortions won't stop people from getting abortions. We already know that that's a bad argument so we shouldn't be using it with other subjects. Though banning isn't the end all be all. We need a cultural shift. We need each individual being able to have the strength to pull themselves out of the clutches of the lies that the gun lobby has spread and taking a stand against it.

When people bring up cars, they don't seem to realize that if the sole purpose of cars was to hurt and kill then yes everyone would support them being banned. And if you can use any household object to kill someone then you can use those same household objects to defend yourself and you don't need a gun. And if people kill people, and the problem is people, then why would you want the problem to have guns? The arguments those who support guns use are hypocritical in terms of how they view other subjects and just bad arguments overall.

It's hypocritical to support guns while being against the death penalty or assisted suicide. If you think a murderer shouldn't be killed for being a murderer (and I agree) then it makes no sense to say that someone robbing you should be shot to death. If you think people shouldn't be killed in war (and I agree) then it makes no sense to say someone breaking into your home while they think you are away should be shot to death. Guns are also the ultimate way to provide suicide assistance because it's one of the more lethal ways to do it and a hell of a lot more people would kill themselves if they had access to guns. It makes no sense to say you are against euthanasia/assisted suicide, or say phrases like "suicide prevention, not suicide assistance" and then turn around and support putting guns into the hands of people who will later use them to kill themselves.

There's nothing about supporting guns that fits in with a culture of life, equity, and social justice. Guns are violence just like abortion, war, the death penalty, animal agriculture, and police brutality. The arguments used to support guns are very similar, if not exactly the same, to the arguments to support of any other form of violence. Guns inherently go against the right to life. For further reading, please check out The Socialist Case for Gun Control by Nivedita Majumdar and What Gun Control Advocates Can Learn From Abolitionists: Slave ownership was once as entrenched in American life as gun ownership. by Manisha Sinha and Rebecca Onion.

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 arguments and pro-life arguments, and the similarities between animal exploitation arguments and pro-choice arguments. Similarities between veganism and pro-lifeism: *Both are centered around the idea of respecting life, especially 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 rights 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, there are many different ways in which the bodies of animals are harmed and they are treated as objects and their bodily rights are 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, or going through training in circuses 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 offensive...so 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 as well as sexism. *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 they are free to adopt out), 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. 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 rescue is present in both. In the 80s and 90s, the pro-life rescue movement was underway with pro-lifers occupying preborn slaughterhouses to save the women and children inside. There has been a modern resurgence of this lately, led by secular progressive pro-life activists such as in PAAU. Animal rights activists also rescue animals from factory farms and other such things, such as with the recent Smithfield Trial which was a victory for members of DXE who saved a few pigs from slaughter. *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 side 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 exploit women, those who are pregnant, and the female reproductive system, break up the mother and baby bond, and kill children. The abortion industry and pro-choice movement tell pregnant people that they cannot be mothers in whatever hard situations they are in so they have no other choice but to abort, or that their children are not children but just clumps of cells. This is exploitative and coercive. Abortion pits mother against child, breaking up the mother-baby bond and kills the pregnant person's baby for a profit. Many post-abortive people grieve their dead children afterward and develop PTSD or depression. The dairy, pork, veal, and eggs industries exploit female farm animals by forcing them to get pregnant so that they can produce milk or more animals to farm, stealing their babies so that the milk can go to humans or to kill the babies who are of no use to the egg industry or can become veal, and send the female children back into the same systems their mothers are in. This not only exploits the mothers and kills the children but also breaks up the mother and baby bond. Mothers are known to grieve their children who were taken from them. *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 they think the earth is 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, sentience, intelligence, size, looks, and ability to contribute to society 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 has 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 labeled "humane" "organic" "grass fed" “cage free" “free rage" without realizing the problems with these, or they point to 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.

Taking Back Bodily Autonomy

I have always been SUPER pro-bodily-autonomy/integrity and freedom of choice. My main philosophy in life has always been that you should be able to do whatever you want, whatsoever, as long as it doesn't hurt another body besides your own. This is exactly why I am against abortion. Bodily autonomy/integrity is why most pro-lifers are against abortion. If there wasn't another body that was being threatened or we didn't care about the body being threatened, we wouldn't be pro-life and there wouldn't be a problem. We'd say "Yeah sure violate and kill the unborn's body, it's not like I care what others do to bodies that aren't their own!" Get a hysterectomy, sure, but there is no greater threat to bodily autonomy than abortion. The right to bodily autonomy fits so much better with the pro-life side.

The thing about pro-choicers is that they don't really understand bodily autonomy. They think it's absolute (they seem to forget the "as long as you don't hurt another body" part of it, and there are many situations in which it is not absolute, such as helmet or other safety laws, drugs being illegal, or illegal in certain circumstances such as for those under a certain age, being taken away on a 5150 and forced in a mental hospital and watched to make sure you don't kill yourself, someone can't neglect their child and refuse to feed it because they don't want to use their arms to give it food (Refusing your child nutrients and survival because you don't want your uterus to go to this is basically the same. Children also have the right to not be neglected, and depriving the child of resources it needs to live, even if it wasn't wanted or planned or is an "inconvenience", is still neglect and still wrong) or kill or hurt their child if they wrapped themselves around your leg for instance and you can't get them off without doing so, and various other circumstances (regardless of whether or not you agree with them, they exist legally)), they think right to life can never come before it (right to life comes before at least most things as it is the ultimate threat against someone (and if you're an Atheist like me, you should really believe in it, as life is ALL we have, and without life, all other rights are meaningless as we wouldn't be alive to be able to use them, and this is why they put life first in "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness", and it's almost like a lot of them don't even think right to life is a thing, because if bodily autonomy always exists in the context of "even if someone dies" as so many of them like to argue, then you can go around killing people an excuse it by saying "Well it was my body doing the killing so you can't do anything about it because bodily autonomy" ), when talking about abortion, they act like the only thing to bodily autonomy is whether or not you allow someone to use your organs (there's much more which I'll explain), and they think forget about the unborn's bodily autonomy because the woman's autonomy is the only thing we should really care about etc.

Now essentially bodily autonomy has a few different things to it (and no not all of them are legal.) It means you can do whatever you want to or with your body (get tattoos or piercings or body mods, take drugs, be a stripper or prostitute, have sex whatever way you want it however much you want it with whomever you want (unless they are underage or someone else non-consenting) refuse to shave or wear makeup etc.), no one can do anything to your body without consent or invade the personal space of your body (think of rape, molestation, inflicting pain or injury, even just touching someone without them wanting you to etc.), and yeah having control over your organs is part of it, but the main thing is that no one can hurt or kill your body without consent (this is actually sort of related to right to life as someone being killed means their body was killed and hurt to the utmost extreme, so they aren't even mutually exclusive in the first place). You get to be in charge of your body, and no one else can ever hurt it (unless you're into that sort of thing and it's completely consensual ).

Of course according to science, the unborn is another individual living human being and different body than the mother. The unborn's bodily autonomy is the one being threatened here as the act in question is abortion and the unborn is the one being aborted, not the woman. Abortion is forcing death (and various things with the various types, such as dismemberment which is also obviously a great threat to bodily autonomy) on it without it consenting and having a choice in the matter. That is the biggest threat to bodily autonomy.

Now trust me, I get that the woman has autonomy too and she might not want to be pregnant and share her body with the unborn. Talking about the unborn's right to bodily autonomy and right to life DOES NOT mean we think little of the woman's right to bodily autonomy (remember I'm a super liberal and radical feminist, super pro-bodily rights type, so don't use that stupid "they all just hate women and want to take away their bodily autonomy" misconception on me). I am female, I live with thinking about what it is like to be pregnant all the time, BUT abortion is still a greater threat to bodily autonomy. Someone hurting or killing someone else's body is obviously a greater threat than someone using someone else's organ to stay alive. Also the unborn has two violations pushed on them (right to life and bodily autonomy) vs. the woman's one.

Abortion being the greater threat to bodily autonomy is true even more so for various reasons. It is completely innocent in the matter, it could not have consented or chosen to be there, and it is already there before a woman can find out she is pregnant or an abortion can take place. It did not "take over the woman's uterus without consent" as it could never have consented to that, and comparisons like that imply intent, but it never could have made a conscious decision to do something like that or even be aware of what it was doing. Just like newborns and toddlers can't be held responsible for certain actions because they couldn't have consented to it or realized what they were doing (from needing to be fed down to more serious things like accidentally hurting someone) the unborn is purely innocent. It can't consent to being killed either, just like infants outside of the womb couldn't consent to being killed so since it's not legal to do that, it doesn't make sense to allow someone to do it to the unborn (other examples of how bodily autonomy still applies to those who aren't aware to be able to consent either way is how women who have passed out can't consent to having sex, so doing that to her is rape, or sleepwalkers can't consent to sleepwalking, yet they also can't consent to being killed). Usually people know that things like circumcision or piercing a baby's ears are against it's bodily autonomy, yet some of them do a 180 when it comes to abortion. Those aborting specifically decide to do so and DID consent and make a conscious decision. The abortion is a direct an conscious action on someone. The unborn being there was there by the actions of the woman and man, or in case of rape man and woman's body. It happens to be using her uterus because that is how science works and the only home it has. Once again, it didn't "force itself into her and take her uterus hostage." Other analogies I've heard are ones like you can't drag an unconscious person into your home and then shoot them because you want them to leave *or something like that*, and extensions of that.

Want of womb empty is definitely not an adequate excuse to literally, purposefully, consciously, and actively kill someone who already happens to be there and by natural circumstances made by other people/bodies, especially those who are the ones wanting to kill them, and without their own consent to be there or a conscious choice made, who is the most innocent out of anyone innocent ever. Anyone for bodily autonomy should be pro-life above all else. No one is saying they should get more rights, we're just saying give them actual equal rights, which pro-choicers don't seem to understand. Someone's rights to their own body stops where another's begins, and we know that that is at conception.

Also I never liked the "kidney transplant" type of analogies. Abortion is different than refusing to give someone an organ or something like that as that hasn't already happened and when someone gives an organ, part of them is gone forever and put into someone else, whereas with the unborn, it is only using the woman's uterus and only for 9 months and she gets to keep it in her, and it is already there and happening by the time she finds out, and she will have it back to herself in months. Also, one might say that if a parent were the one to make their child's organ non-functioning, they should be obligated to give them theirs, or if someone already had an organ transplant, they shouldn't be allowed to take it back (which is actually an actual thing. You can't take it back once they are already using the organ, let alone take tools to dismember and kill them, and the unborn is already using the organ) and anyone can also refuse to take an organ, and if they don't they agree and make a conscious decision to take someone's organ, but the unborn can't refuse to use the uterus, and like I said before didn't make the choice to use it in the first place, and then there is the difference between actively killing and letting die, but even beyond all of that, I'm sure even the most pro-choice people still think very poorly of those who just flat out refuse to give someone an organ if they really need it.

Vegetarian/Vegan/Animal rights activist pro-choicers

There are a few groups for vegans and vegetarians who are pro-life. The facebook group Vegans Against Abortion and the facebook page Vegetarian and Pro-Life

One of the things that annoys me the most is how incredibly inconsistent and hypocritical people can be. Take, for example, the vegetarian or vegan animal rights types of people (well in this one instance coming up). I am of course one myself, so it bugs me all the more when you know a lot of them are pro-choice. It is incredibly hypocritical to support the rights of animals (who definitely aren't people) and say that they should have equal rights to us and the right to life and to not have to be hurt or killed or messed with, yet the unborn don't get these rights, especially if they say it's because they "aren't people." Well newsflash, animals you protect against other people denying their rights, usually with the argument as well that they aren't people, OBVIOUSLY AREN'T PEOPLE!!! Yet you say that that doesn't matter of course, because they still deserve rights. Trust me, I believe this as well, so why double back and use the same arguments you have to fight against when it comes to animal rights, while trying to deny the rights of the unborn? The unborn at least are more "persons" than animals are, and science already tells us that they are human beings. This is just one of the many examples of liberals using the same argument they fight against in support of the denying of the rights of the unborn. It astounds me that they don't notice themselves spewing out the same talking points conservatives give on a number of issues. Someone should really go through all the arguments liberal pro-choicers use for their pro-choice stance with those that conservatives use for denying rights to people of different races, women, homosexuals, and whoever else, as well as gun rights, refusing universal healthcare, war, and whatever else you can think of.

One of the reasons people are the veggie/animal rights types is because they want the innocent to be safe and ok and have rights. If it's not you, you don't get to kill it or hurt it. There is nothing more innocent than the unborn. Even more so than animals.

Then of course you have these types who also tend to advocate for not killing/chopping down plants and destroying them and the ecosystem as little as possible (the environmentalist/tree-hugger/save the rainforest types, and I am that too of course), and you REALLY can't advocate for that and then turn around and not give a damn about the unborn, especially if you recognize that of course even plants are alive/life yet you think fetuses aren't.

Then you'll have the pro-choice liberals (pretty much all of the pro-choice liberals) who say "well if they were really so pro-life, they'd be vegetarians, or vegans, or pro-peace" and it's like YES!!! I'm always saying that! Vegans and vegetarians and people who are pro-peace should be pro-life, and vice versa, as those fit together. If I ever bring this up, they tend to shut up because they now realize they have made the point that being pro-life fits in with all these liberal things, without meaning to. It's hypocritical to say "Well if you're really so pro-life" or "Well then you should also be (insert whatever liberal thing) " and then exclude yourself and people who are already liberal from that and be pro-choice, or then say that everyone should be pro-choice. Think about what would happen if pro-lifers did all the things liberals said they should do if they were really so pro-life (and of course I agree that they should be all those things): THEY'D BE LIBERAL!!!! Yes, that's right! You would have successfully turned them liberal and they would now be liberal pro-lifers, who you then would probably say should be pro-choice. You don't care about consistency, you just want everyone to be exactly like you. Everyone knows that this issue is hypocritical on all sides, they just don't want to know it with their own side. I actually always thought that especially vegetarians and vegans should be pro-life, and if you do eat meat, then you aren't as hypocritical and perhaps you get a teensy bit of a pass because you already don't really care about the innocent or animals or rights anyway (no offense meat eaters.)

I even came across this picture recently, which all the more made me think of how hypocritical pro-choice animal rights activists are. I love that they are doing this for the animals, I do advocate for thinking animals are equal to humans, but they (that is the pro-choice people who think like this) are labeling those who can't be considered human as non-human persons, yet those who can, don't get the right to be called persons? COME ON!!! I really hope whoever made this and all who agree with it realize how hypocritical and stupid it would then be to label the unborn as not persons and dehumanize them or deny their rights. I'll say this again: They are at the very least, more "persons" than animals are.