Double-Standards
*Religious* pro-lifers (not necessarily secular pro-lifers) adhere to a
double-standard. They treat the abortion issue as a secular civil rights and
human rights issue which they say applies to *everyone* including atheists
and agnostics.
But they try to sweep a serious moral issue like animal rights under the rug
by depicting it as someone else's "religious belief" which they say doesn't
apply them.
(The irony is a lot of liberals look at abortion that way, too! If you're
not born again, you don't have to be pro-life.)
Religious identity doesn't matter on the issue of abortion.
(1) Religious pro-lifers will listen to respected pro-life columnist Nat
Hentoff, a self-described "liberal Jewish atheist," without crying "Red"
because of his political leanings; without discrediting him or dismissing
him as an atheist; without pointing their fingers at their noses; without
sticking their legs out, mimicking a dog taking a leak; without saying "Jew
up!" "Jew ever!" "Always Jew", etc.
(2) Religious pro-lifers will listen to Dr. J.C. Willke, former head of
National Right to Life, whom I believe is Catholic, and we all know how much
born agains *love* the Catholic Church!
(3) Heck, religious pro-lifers will even listen to A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami
Prabhupada, the Hindu spiritual master who brought Krishna Consciousness to
the West, when he designated the unborn as a "baby" over Episcopal priest
Joseph Fletcher, who said, "There is no such thing as an unborn baby. The
fetus is 'gametic material.'"
But on the issue of animal rights, they don't even have the decency to say,
"Oh. PETA." Instead, suddenly religious identity makes a difference. And
they're asking whether we worship in churches or temples, whether we "work"
for our salvation, whether we refer to sinners as "dogs" or with half a
dozen different animal words; whether we're Trinitarian or non-Trinitarian,
etc.
Religious pro-lifers will cite secular arguments for the personhood of the
unborn to those outside of their faith and those of no faith:
e.g.:
(1) the federal government imposing a fine for anyone destroying a
fertilized bald eagle egg;
(2) it would be a considered a crime to administer a drug to toddlers which
prevents them from actualizing their higher learning potential;
(3) Dr. J.C. Willke of National Right to Life explaining prenatal
development and individual life as a continuum from fertilization until
natural death, and pro-lifers saying that debates about the onset of
personhood during that continuum resemble to old, medieval arguments about
ensoulment, etc.
But when presented with secular arguments on behalf of animals, on behalf of
the creatures, suddenly they think their religion exempts them!
Religious pro-lifers try to pin down others with secular arguments, while
saying their religion exempts them from others using secular arguments on
them!
A double-standard! And they have the gall to claim they "cover" or "do unto
others..."
Aren't pro-choice Christians likewise exempt from having to protect the
unborn if their religion permits abortion?
Can pro-choice Christians dismiss protecting the unborn as unnecessary
"work" or "so much garbage" from the Law which Paul says is abolished?
(Actually, there is only meager concern for the unborn in the Old Testament.
Despite the verses in the Psalms about being formed in secret, the unborn
are NOT considered persons in the Bible.)
Can pro-choice Christians cite Exodus 21 which clearly indicates the unborn
do not have the status of a person, like meat-eating Christians citing
Genesis 9:3 to justify murdering animals?
Can pro-choice Christians cite Paul's claim that the risen Jesus told him
three times, "...my grace is sufficient for thee..." to say they don't have
to protect the unborn if they don't want to?
Can pro-choice Christians say killing the unborn is a choice echoing Paul in
Romans 14 ?
Frances Arnetta, founder of Christians Helping Animals and People, and
herself a Christian vegetarian, explains the traditional Christian
interpretation of Romans 14 and I Corinthians 8 as follows:
"Paul deals at length with the subject of meat-eating Vs vegetarianism in
Romans, chapter 14 (happily, indicating a widespread interest in the subject
at the time). Basically, his message is that one should not be judgmental
towards another...
"Paul admonishes believers that if their meat-eating offends someone, they
should refrain from eating meat. While we should never try to force another
into a particular lifestyle, we can certainly educate and encourage others
into vegetarianism..."
Despite Frances Arnetta's words, many conservative Christians don't want
animal activists to "educate and encourage others into vegetarianism..."
For example, they don't want animal activists pointing out to pro-lifers the
direct relevance of animal rights to human rights issues like racism and
abortion, the human rights and social justice arguments in favor of
vegetarianism (while humans are starving, half the world's grain is fed to
livestock!), etc.
Aren't feeding the hungry; treating the body as a temple of God which should
not be defiled nor dishonored through antibiotics, hormones, pesticides,
poisons and other unhealthy toxins and unhealthy food in general; the
institutionalized killing of billions of animals being directly responsible
for global hunger, global warming, the energy, environmental, population and
water crises; treating animals humanely, and compassionate stewardship over
the environment, over all of God's creation, all biblical issues? The
editors of the Green Bible, which highlights environmentally-friendly
biblical passages might think so.
Can pro-choice Christians shrug off a serious moral issue like the unborn's
right to life with pious platitudes like, "Also, since we are all sinners,
we should never be proud or judgmental..." ?
What about a pro-choice Christian telling his followers, "You *don't* have
to protect the unborn... all you have to do is accept Jesus..." ?
If an on-air personality were to say, "You *don't* have to protect the
unborn..." pro-lifers would be up in arms demanding equal time!
And this actually happened, too, in 1990, when CNN's Ted Turner ran the Fund
for the Feminist Majority "documentary" Abortion: For Survival without
giving equal time to the pro-life side.
Pro-life Christians react to animal rights not as a political issue on par
with abortion, nor as a secular moral philosophy, like the abolition of
slavery, or the emancipation of women, birth control, the sexual revolution,
LGBT rights, etc...
...but as someone else's religious belief!
(Ironically, a lot of liberals see abortion that way, too.)
In response to anti-semitic *yawns* can pro-choicers dismiss the idea of a
future in which the unborn are protected as wishful thinking by a religious
minority (what to speak of a dystopian future, like Margaret Atwood's The
Handmaid's Tale)?
Saying "the Bible permits us to kill animals" isn't convincing. The Bible
permits the killing of the unborn, too, just as it permits slavery and the
subjugation of women. If pro-lifers are going to argue in terms of social
progress to protect the unborn, can't animal activists do likewise?
If our relationship with other species is partly an environmental ethics
issue; if *how* we protect other species becomes a question of humanitarian
and environmental ethics, pro-lifers dismiss it as none of their concern. By
their logic, liberals and environmentalists don't have to be pro-life,
either?
They're offended by pro-choice vegetarians and vegans, appearing to value
animal life over human life under some circumstances, but what about the
converse? Why isn't anyone offended by "meat-eating pro-lifers" ? Why is the
outrage one-directional?
Pro-lifers dictating to mainstream American society that it's wrong to kill
the unborn are not in a position to object when told it's wrong to kill
animals.
And pro-lifers have the gall to claim they "cover..." or "do unto others..."
!
Pro-lifers show greater hostility when told not to kill animals than
pro-choicers show when told not to kill the unborn. That kind of response is
completely irrational!
And it merely proves what Pythagoras taught 2,500 years ago: "Those who kill
animals for food will be more prone than vegetarians to torture and kill
their fellow men."
Go on to: Dr. Tom Regan (1938 - 2017)
Return to: Articles
