March
2001
Abortion
and Animal Advocacy
By
Beth Gould
|
|
|
In making sense of the morals and achievements
of a society, it is relevant to look at how our time will be judged
by future generations. Will they condemn us because rich countries
were
the agents of worldwide suffering through greed, shortsightedness and
nationalism? Because of the wars that we have engaged or the wars
we
chose not to fight? And will they judge us to be wantonly negligent
because we have encouraged, with our laws and with our fixation on
personal
freedom, institutions that caused the deaths of literally billions
of lives each year in the U.S. alone? I am referring to the executions
of nearly ten billion farm animals, and the over 1.4 million legal
abortions
each year in the U.S. Add to these numbers the 697 executions of inmates
in our penal system since the death penalty’s re-instatement
in 1976, and it would be hard to believe that future generations
would
not view us as barbaric.
In the U.S. our judicial system revolves around the interpretation
of the rights of its citizens. Our laws ensure such “inalienable” rights
as the right to bear arms, to work and live in an environment free
of harassment, to read, look at, and say what we like; while simultaneously
ignoring and sanctioning what many see as the most basic right: that
of simply being allowed to live. Many activists and religious organizations
see this as a right that supercedes all others. Therefore, killing
for
sport, for revenge, or for convenience is viewed as immoral. The animals
whom activists try to save and to learn from teach us that one does
not kill unnecessarily. Animals kill only for sustenance and for survival;
this biological imperative rarely, if ever, involves any other purpose.
There is a difference between the harm that humans inflict upon other
beings, human and nonhuman, to ensure their own survival, and the pain
and death that humans inflict upon other creatures as a symbol of preserving
and asserting our freedoms. We put freedoms that are not survival-based
above the sanctity of life simply because we have the power to do so.
The billions of animals that die in our commodified, institutionalized
slaughterhouses every year do not die for our survival. It is clear
that vegetarian diets supply the necessary nutrients. Likewise, the
overwhelming majority of the 1.4 million abortions performed yearly
are actually for convenience and have nothing to do with the physical
survival of the mother. And few would not admit that the death penalty
has anything to do with the fear that the condemned person would repeat
their crimes; rather, it is state-sanctioned retribution.
The slaughter of animals, abortion and the death penalty have an important
component in common: our society inflicts death upon living creatures
that most see as beneath them, or so alien as to make it possible to
separate the suffering inflicted on them from what we would want inflicted
upon ourselves. The ‘otherness’ of these victims stems from
the belief that they either deserve it, as in the case of inmates,
or
that they are not intelligent, cognizant or even alive enough to realize
what is being taken away from them.
None of us like the idea that a living creature is a powerless victim,
especially those who are committed to living a compassionate lifestyle.
But we must concede that the creatures who are slaughtered for food
or destroyed for convenience are powerless, and they are dead at our
hands. Abortion rights activists argue with this contention based on
an ongoing debate about when life begins, and that the life of the fetus
should not be granted more weight than the wishes of the mother. I agree
that the life of the fetus should not take precedence over the life
of the mother, but the question as to the point when life begins is
more complicated. It brings into focus our understanding of what it
is to be alive, and when life starts and ends.
From a biological standpoint it is fairly clear when life ends: when
the brain ceases to function and the body can no longer maintain its
heartbeat and breathing process on its own. The question of when life
begins shifts the focus of the abortion discussion from the rights
and
choices of the mother to the question of whether or not we allow a
life to exist, and what rights—if any—are “owed” to such
a living being. There is much debate about exactly when an unborn child
is ‘really alive.’ Some say it’s when the heart maintains
its own rhythm, or when the fetus is viable outside the womb. Such
definitions
are arbitrary since no specific moment can pinpoint the development
of vital organs, and, with the development of medical science, fetuses
are viable outside the womb at increasingly earlier gestation dates.
It seems obvious to point out that when something is alive, it will
continue to be so until a specific event causes this status to change,
whether it be organ failure, disease, or an intervention from another
party. It would be logical then to look at the beginning of life in
the same way. After the point of conception, a fetus will grow to viability
(whenever that is) unless a specific event causes its termination,
whether
that be miscarriage, abortion, or some biological failing. Since there
is no specific moment that deems a fetus suddenly “alive” (as
opposed to not) during the incubation period and because conception
is the event that causes a life to develop, it is reasonable to say
that human life begins at this point, and that any abortive measure
taken thereafter ends that life.
Activists involved in various advocacy movements generally take to
heart the idea that a living creature should not have its life taken
away
by another. It is troubling to me then, that the lives that are denied
by abortion are rarely addressed by the same people who take action
to stop other premature terminations, such as the slaughter of animals
and the executions of prisoners. The common reasoning is the unanimous
support of the mother’s right to choose her own destiny. Since
this choice is made at the cost of another living being, I propose,
however, that the choice lies not in whether to terminate the life of
a fetus, but in the decision to procreate or not. This reproductive
right should be protected stringently, because the victim of rape or
the child who is the victim of incest has no such choice. The decision
to terminate a fetus in order to preserve one’s personal freedoms
seems to me akin to the choice to eat flesh, wear fur, or carry a firearm.
They are rights we have under our Constitution, but they do not seem
to fall under the rubric of leading lives that do no harm to others.
