The convergence of the anti-abortion and animal “rights” movements

Author Charles Camosy has authored a very interesting commentary published by the Free-Lance Star demonstrating a convergence of the anti-abortion and animal rights movements. In light of the controversy surrounding the videos of Planned Parenthood representatives allegedly seeking to sell fetal body parts illegally and the outrage over the death of Cecil the Lion, Camosy makes a intriguing observation.

The moral dispositions and motivations of animal rights and anti-abortion activists are actually quite similar.

Consider the views of those who care deeply about animal rights. What drives them? Animals are helpless creatures, often subject to terrible violence, and they cannot speak for themselves. Their dignity and value are quite inconvenient for those who want to exploit them, and their needs are pushed to the margins of our culture. Indeed, we are rarely forced to confront the dignity of animals, especially animals we eat. This is what drives the passion of activists in their attempts to speak for voiceless animals. And in their zeal to bring us face to face with animal suffering, tellingly, they regularly use undercover videos. These videos have been quite successful in bringing some terrible realities to light—for example, the conditions of chickens in the worst factory farms.

Anti-abortion activists are driven in similar ways. Prenatal children are also helpless and often subject to terrible violence. They obviously cannot speak for themselves. Their dignity and value are inconvenient for those who want abortion to be broadly legal and who want to use fetal tissue for research. They too are largely invisible, though this is changing because of ultrasound imagery and smartphone applications that can listen to a baby’s heartbeat in the womb. Words like “fetus,” “tissue” and “products of conception” help keep the reality of abortion at bay. But as we have now seen with the Planned Parenthood story, anti-abortion activists have also been successful in using undercover videos in bringing terrible reality to light—what in one setting is called the “products of conception” in another is a “baby bump,” and the antiseptic “tissue” means functioning organs.

Though after this Camosy’s case becomes weaker stating the possibility that the two may unite by default due to their similarities. There is one aspect both groups are united in or are defined by one tenet Camosy neglects to point out: faith. Both groups appeal to a higher power or mysticism in order to make their case grounding their logic in subjectivism (i.e. their feelings). Anti-abortionists appeal to the supernatural claiming that life begins at conception, while animal rights groups believe animals deserve rights since animals feel pain like humans do. It is both groups being united in the morality of self-sacrifice (altruism) grounded in mysticism that also results in their hatred of actual human life.

Both groups are not just religious in nature but are ultimately evil in their intent since organizations from both camps are cults. Animal rights and anti-abrotion groups rely on lies and manipulation (force and fraud) not just to maintain their memberships but also in order to achieve their aim of controlling mankind. Both are two sides of the same collectivist coin that wish to make people’s lives a living hell on Earth. Anti-abortion groups and animal rights groups are anti-life and see people as a means to their ends. The former sees humans as a means to end for pro-creation and to be abandoned to preserve the existence of a potential (not an actual) human being while the latter wishes to sacrifice man to the non-human.