Opinion

I’m pro-life and eat chicken: Is animal cruelty equal to abortion?

I once gave a lecture on abortion at a college in Connecticut. After I finished my talk, I allowed time for students to share any questions they had related to the topic. One of the first people to approach me was a young man who ran a radio show on campus. I remember this man because he walked up to me and zealously stuck a pamphlet in my hand. When I looked at the information, I saw a picture of some miserable-looking chickens stuck in cages. The man began to inform me that eating meat was animal cruelty, that chickens are just as valuable as fetuses, and that a true “pro-lifer” should care for both.

Now, don’t get me wrong; I like animals. While I’m not a dog person, I have compassion for the creatures. I hate it when I hear about poor pooches being used for dog-fighting. That’s just plain wrong. Find a better hobby, people.

But while I’ll agree that animals should be protected, I do think our society often has its priorities mixed up when it comes to pets. Case in point: Michael Vick. The man gets caught taking part in illegal dog-fighting rings (like I said, totally wrong), is condemned by the media, pays thousands in fines and serves 18 months in a federal prison. Yet abortion doctors can tear apart six-month-old babies in the womb and there’s no national uproar. Sheesh, George Tiller is still considered a hero by many.

Back to my college story. I kindly told the well-meaning man that I defend children, not chicken. I’m not sure if I worded it like that, but he got the point.

Fast-forward a few summers. I’m leading a prayer meeting in downtown New Haven, CT at the Amistad memorial. The Amistad memorial is located on the spot of a former jail that once held the slaves who escaped from the ship Amistad. I was leading a prayer meeting focused on ending abortion in front of the statue of former slave and abolitionist Cinque.

I picked that location to make a point. Slavery was an atrocious crime that destroyed the lives of millions of Africans, but there is a greater evil that’s eliminating blacks from the planet. Many slaves lived lives of great oppression, but they lived nonetheless. If they hadn’t, Harriet Tubman couldn’t have been my personal hero. Abortion – unlike slavery – stops a beating heart and destroys life before it begins.

By some crazy occurrence, the same weekend I had my prayer meeting downtown, another organization was holding an event just feet away from ours. It was PETA, the animal rights group that seeks to protect their furry friends at all costs. You may recall some of their more radical members throwing paint at models wearing fur. Lady Gaga enraged them when she wore a dress made of raw meat.

So PETA was holding an event on the New Haven green with huge pictures of Africans in chains placed alongside pictures of animals in cages. They declared the suffering of animals comparable to the pain Africans endured in slavery. As you can imagine, some found their exhibit quite offensive. I heard about it when a friend asked if I was downtown holding pictures of slaves and chickens. I made it very clear I was not.

A chicken and a child do not have the same value. While I’m at it, a tree and a child don’t, either. Trees are important, but so is paper, firewood, and the oak table I’m leaning on as I write this article. How can we as a society fight for the protection of whales, trees, and chickens while neglecting the right of innocent children to live?

A girl on a train once told me a story about the time her mom gave her a lobster to play with, then minutes later picked it up and threw it in a boiling pot of water. She was never the same. The girl was so struck by her playmate’s sudden death that she vowed to never eat meat again. The girl brought up the story when I began to tell her I was pro-life. She assumed that since I was pro-life, I should be vegetarian, vegan, or an animal rights activist. If I really cared about innocent life, surely I should battle to save the animals.

She’s not the only one who thinks that way. PETA even made a sign that says, “Pro-life? Go vegan.” Along with the words on the sign are three cute little chicks. PETA wanted to use the image in a billboard in the Houston area when Planned Parenthood was opening up its mega-clinic in that city. In the midst of the pro-life/pro-choice debates, PETA wanted to bring “peace” by telling people to respect the sanctity of all life.

I believe that humans are superior creatures to plants, animals, and all other forms of life. We can vote, floss, do complex math, knit sweaters, and create origami. At least some of us can, that is. Of course, being superior doesn’t mean we should be bullies who rule the planet with an iron fist. We should seek to treat animals with compassion,  take care of the earth, and defend human life at all stages.

I have a biblical worldview, or a worldview based on the Bible. In Romans 14:5-6, Paul the apostle writes:

One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.

The book known by Jews as the Torah and by Christians as the Old Testament has countless verses describing biblical characters offering up lambs for sacrifices, using them for food, and taking their skin for clothing. We can see from those verses that God didn’t have a problem with a fur coat or lamb stew. However, the scriptures reveal that there was one sacrifice God abhorred. Jehovah was continually angered at the Israelites for sacrificing their children to false gods. The shedding of innocent blood through child sacrifice was repeatedly condemned.

Catholic writer Jennifer Fulweir was once an atheist and pro-choice vegetarian. In an article in the National Catholic Register titled “Why I was a Pro-Choice Vegetarian,” Jennifer describes the faulty reasoning behind her former views:

While I donated money to PETA and other animal rights organizations to help save pigs and cows, I also donated money to Planned Parenthood to support the abortion industry. I had not the slightest qualm about the idea of an early-stage abortion. On my spectrum of worthiness of life, adult humans were on the far right side; fetuses were on the left. Unborn humans were somewhere around shrimp and worms in terms of value, because they could not display any intelligence. And so it seemed unfair to ask women to turn their lives upside down for a lifeform that had all the value of a crustacean. Even though it would be years before I would come to see that this entire understanding of human life was founded on a lie, I would occasionally get a glimpse of the chilling implications of this view. For example, one time in college I heard a professor make the statement that it would be more ethical to kill a newborn baby than a pig, since pigs are more intelligent and aware of their surroundings. I scoffed at the absurdity of such a notion. Yet when I tried to argue against it, I realized that he was actually using my own worldview to justify his position.

Bottom line is this, I am pro-human life. I love people. I really like cheeseburgers. I don’t support animal cruelty, but I don’t think it’s cruel to eat animals. Yet when it comes to what’s most important, my time is best spent protecting and defending the lives of little humans. I don’t have a problem eating chicken while I do it.

Live Action on Facebook
  • Steve Farrell

    It would be great if someone would acknowledge that chickens, toddlers, and African-Americans are life forms that don’t live on the inside of other organisms. Calling blastocysts and fetuses “little humans” doesn’t change the fact that they’re physically inside, and wholly part of another human. Doesn’t this adult, female human deserve to be considered in this matter? If so, then why does Christina Martin not mention the pregnant mother *even once* in this article?

    • Tony A.

      Perhaps this article is more for you.

      http://www.abort73.com/abortion/competing_rights/

      • Steve Farrell

        From the article: “Ninety-nine percent of all abortions in the U.S. are performed on women who chose to have sexual intercourse.”

        Yeah, that really speaks to the humanity and complexity of the matter, Tony. Thanks a bunch.

    • http://www.facebook.com/beverly.harlton Beverly Harlton

      The more you post on this site, Steve, the more I think that you haven’t any understanding of what a mammal is. Mammals are endothermic. They generally have hair. They carry their young inside their uteri and give birth to them. They have mammary glands with which to produce milk that nourishes their young. Human blastocysts and fetuses are indeed little humans. They have human DNA and are separate and unique individuals from their mothers.

      Our bodily autonomy ends when it extends to another. Just because a fetus grows inside its mother does not make it a part of her. It’s simply not. Therefore, she does not have the right to murder it. The fetus is not enslaving her by using her body for nourishment. It’s doing what it was intended to do, be it by God or nature, whichever you prefer. Pregnancy is part and parcel of being a mammal. We can’t change that.

      You seem to think that no one cares about the poor, pitiful woman, forced to endure the horror from the ninth circle of hell that is pregnancy. That is far from the case. Women, especially women in need, need to be shown love, helped, cared for, and taught how to do the best thing for their babies, whether that is raising them themselves or giving them up for adoption to couples that can better care for them. Crisis pregnancy centers across the US are doing just that. Yes, the mother matters, but her child does, too, and it is just as human as she is and JUST as worthy of life.

      • Steve Farrell

        “it is just as human as she is”
        Except it isn’t. This baby hasn’t been born yet. She’s an adult female who should be trusted to make the right decision for herself and her family. You would resent someone forcing her to have an abortion, right? So would I. She shouldn’t be forced to carry the fetus to term, either. She should have a choice whether to undergo the rigors of pregnancy and childbirth.

        • http://www.facebook.com/beverly.harlton Beverly Harlton

          Again, you prove yourself completely ignorant of basic biology. The baby has not yet been born, but its DNA is exactly the same in utero as it is in the outside world. There are no degrees of humanity. Is a fetal cat any less feline than an adult cat? Certainly not. It’s not a fish or a puppy, it’s a cat.

          As for your point about an “adult female who should be trusted to make the right decision,” I will tell you two things:
          1) Murder of an innocent is never the right decision.
          2) An adult female makes the decision whether or not to be pregnant and carry said pregnancy to term when she engages in consensual sexual intercourse. In this day and age, you would have to be an idiot not to know that sex can lead to conception. She has a variety of options at her disposal, including use of contraception, “outercourse,” use of a sex toy with her partner, abstinence at times when she is fertile, and complete abstinence.

          Again, you seem to have a limited understanding of biology. A woman *cannot* be forced to carry a pregnancy to term. Carrying a pregnancy to term is what the female body is made to do. In some cases, she will miscarry. Perhaps forcing her to keep the dead fetus her body is naturally trying to expel inside her uterus could constitute “forcing” her to carry her pregnancy to term. A woman can not be forced to give birth any more than she can be forced to cough, vomit, or defecate. Far be it from me to compare a fetus to fecal matter; my point is that all of those are natural processes. Birth is also a natural process.

          I’m also guessing that you have never seen an abortion. You posted elsewhere that you have two children, so I assume you have seen live births. I have seen both. Perhaps after seeing a *human* fetus dismembered, you will reconsider whether or not it is more cruel than “the rigors of pregnancy and childbirth.”

          • Basset_Hound

            Excellent post, Beverly. Very thoughtful and compassionate.

          • Steve Farrell

            “The baby has not yet been born, but its DNA is exactly the same in utero as it is in the outside world.”

            So what? You’re arbitrarily choosing a property that you consider important without telling us why chromosome count is the be-all and end-all of the matter. Affirm the Consequent much? I believe a tapeworm has a full complement of chromosomes too, and its DNA is completely different from the host’s. Does that mean we should protect these parasites and prohibit people from having them removed?

            “my point is that all of those are natural processes. Birth is also a natural process.”

            Once again, so what? Cancerous infections are “natural” processes too, when cells can’t stop dividing and reproducing. Viral and bacterial infections are also “natural” in that they are the product of living organisms trying to survive and replicate themselves. Is there something sacred in people being infected with cholera or influenza?

          • http://www.facebook.com/beverly.harlton Beverly Harlton

            A tapeworm is of a different species from the host, genius. Cancer, viral infections, and bacterial infections are inherently harmful to their hosts. A fetus, conversely, is of the same species as its mother. It’s human. Maybe you’d figure that out if you actually watched an abortion (which I’m guessing you’re too cowardly to, given your bizarre desire to promote murder and flagrant disregard of anything scientific).

            Chromosome count is not the end-all be-all of the matter. The *nature* of those chromosomes is. A fetus does not have the same DNA as a tapeworm. It is human, no matter how you slice it.

          • Steve Farrell

            Beverly, I don’t think open-heart surgery should be illegal either, but I refuse to watch videos of the process. Does this make me a hypocrite in your eyes? Your argumentation seems to consist of insulting your opponent and calling your view “scientific” instead of acknowledging that the mother is more than just an indistinct location the sacred human child inhabits before it gets placed in a crib.

          • http://www.facebook.com/beverly.harlton Beverly Harlton

            At least you’re acknowledging that the child is human now. That’s a step, Steve. Keep working at it, and some day, you’ll see that its life is worth just as much as its mother’s. A mother is not an “indistinct location;” she is a human being; however, this does not make her free to murder her own child. If she does not wish to be pregnant, she can take a variety of steps before intercourse to ensure that she does not conceive. All of your emphasis on the poor little mother who “needs” to abort her child is extremely degrading to women. There are so many options for us women that don’t involve victimising us or encouraging us to be murderers.

            I’m not sure why you put “scientific” in quotes when referring to my view. That makes you sound a little sarcastic. Then again, you don’t seem to have any concept of science or biology, so it stands to reason that you would not know a scientific fact if it were on the webpage in front of you. I have yet to see any arguments from you implying that you understand the science behind life and conception, as you continuously pump out fallacious arguments and empty rhetoric. Please explain to me the facts behind your reasoning. Everything I have said can be verified by the simplest of biology texts.

            Finally, as for your non sequitur about heart surgery, I can assure you that heart surgery and abortion are nothing alike. The primary difference is that heart surgery is performed in order to save a life whenever possible. Abortion, on the other hand, while occasionally performed under the protective mantle of saving the mother’s life, has at its core the intent to do harm to the fetus.

          • Steve Farrell

            Beverly, you hardly deserve to be taking such a patronizing tone here. You make it sound as if you’ve presented scientific evidence that demolishes the notion that a woman should have a choice of what happens inside her own body. But since you appear to consider it scientific that a zygote’s full complement of chromosomes somehow nullifies a woman’s right to terminate gestation, I question your expertise in scientific matters.

            Elsewhere, you’ve simply moved the goalposts whenever it’s convenient for you. When you told me it’s important that the fetus has different DNA from the mother, I pointed out that so do tapeworms and bacteria. You responded that such parasites have DNA that’s *too* different from their hosts. Then you said that my reluctance to watch videos of abortions is proof positive that I’m ashamed of the barbaric procedure. I just pointed out that I’m not in the habit of watching videos of surgeries of any kind, and that’s no reflection on the efficacy of the surgery. You then moved the goalposts again, and argued that that wasn’t a good analogy because heart surgery is different from abortion.

            Since you take issue with “empty rhetoric,” I wonder why your entire approach to argumentation involves insult and inflammatory statements about murdering babies. If you’re interested in civil dialogue, there should be no need for such tactics. All I’m saying is that I’m not comfortable making family planning decisions for others.

  • AnimuX

    Unfortunately, this seems to be a common intellectually lazy trend with pro-life op-eds lately. Using ‘animal rights’ as a straw man argument does not bolster the pro-life movement. It merely confuses the message by making a false comparison between two completely unrelated subjects. It’s a lot like claiming you can’t be pro-life and support war at the same time.

    After all, how can someone who believes that all human life is precious and that life begins at conception then support any offensive military action by any government that leads to unnecessary war and the killing of innocent people? The Iraq war displaced millions of people and directly contributed to the deaths of tens of thousands of people (hundreds of thousands by some accounts) — yet the pro-life movement did not also join an anti-war movement. It seems that even the holier-than-thou attitudes of pro-life protesters have limits in established ‘gray areas’ whenever it is politically convenient.

    So, at least consider the fact that ‘animal rights’ protesters can also be ‘pro-life’. The two are not mutually exclusive. Declaring that all animal rights protesters are pro-abortion is like claiming all pro-life protesters are war mongers. It is a logical fallacy.

    Second, there is a distinction that needs to be made between animal rights and conservation. While some believe that animals should not be exploited by human beings under any circumstances, others simply believe that animals should not be treated in cruel ways and that human industry should not ruin the natural world or cause the extinction of species through over exploitation, habitat destruction, and pollution.

    These are reasonable subjects of protest. At least as reasonable as any pro-life argument.

  • http://twitter.com/Astraspider Astraspider

    I don’t demand that pro-lifers be vegetarian. But I do demand they contemplate their utter lack of interest in discussing or tackling capital punishment.

    • Julia

      Capital punishment is totally different. Abortion kils an innocent human child for convenience. The death penalty kills person been found guilty of horrible crimes.

      • http://twitter.com/Astraspider Astraspider

        Not only are you being hypocritical, but really naive about how the justice system applies capital punishment. As I’ve said before, it’s a cowardly kind of Christian love that can only muster it for the blank slate of a fetus.

      • Detroiter327

        Please look up how many innocent people have been executed in the last 50 years before you say things like that.

    • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

      Good grief. How many times do the differences between capital punishment and abortion have to be explained to you before you stop trotting it out as evidence of inconsistency you know isn’t there?

  • http://www.facebook.com/megan.baatz Megan Baatz

    I appreciate your insight and vulnerability in writing this, Christina. I have identified myself as pro-life for a few years now, and a Christ follower for about 8 years. But this year I was approached by a vegan activist on my campus who made me rethink the way I think about animals as a Christian and a steward of creation. It’s not eating animals that’s unethical, but the way many industries treat animals while they are alive. For anybody who would like to read, please check out my own article here: http://www.daughterofpearlblog.com/sitting-on-the-fence-just-makes-your-butt-numb/

  • Yolanta

    While I do not equate animal life and human life, I think a lot of the principles behind which pro-lifers and vegans stand are the same, such as respect for life, fighting for the rights of those who cannot defend themselves, and refusal to shy away from the truth, unpleasant as it is.

    Of course not all people who are pro-life are vegan, and not all vegans are pro-life. I happen to be both, and I find that when I’m in a position to validate my stance on either, I’m making similar arguments.

    I’ve seen abortion and its after-effects and I’ve seen animal production and slaughter. Both are horrific. I’d venture to say that most people who support abortion or who have had an abortion do not investigate the reality of what it is they are supporting by actually looking at what the process entails, just like most people who consume animal products do not investigate the reality of how they are produced and end up on our tables.

    I appreciate and respect Christina’s position that we should treat animals with compassion; however, compassion is not a reality in the animal production industry.

    I appreciate and respect Christina’s position that when it comes to what’s important, her time is best spent protecting and defending the lives of little humans. I do, however, challenge her comment that she does not support animal cruelty. She may not agree with animal cruelty, but we all support it by consuming the products of animal industry and remaining ignorant about their production.

    I think the point of the PETA demonstration was to challenge our attitude and our thinking. While many found it offensive to compare the plight of African slaves to animals in captivity, the point is that people used to think slavery was ok. They bought into lies and were somehow able to justify it in their minds when it should have defied all human reason. The same goes for the Holocaust. The same goes for abortion. The same goes for the animal industry. True, animals are not people, but they are intelligent, sentient beings capable of experiencing fear and suffering, and they are being produced, tortured, and exploited by the billions. And people think this is ok.

    The “glass walls” argument applies to both abortion clinics and slaughterhouses.

    Christina, I thank you for bringing up this topic, as it brings together two causes I believe in. If you truly do not want to support animal cruelty, and I say this with all sincerity, I would simply encourage you to seek out the truth about the chicken you have no problem eating while defending the lives of little humans.