Abortion vs Animal Rights: A paradox for the right and left!
One of the latest attacks from the left on Sarah Palin has been on the issue of animal rights. Palin’s support of the aerial hunting of wolves has many people upset. A video has recently appeared on YouTube and is the topic on many blogs. To be honest, I think this one attack on Palin has merit. This is a cruel practice that should be stopped. I am also posting the video, but don’t watch it if you can’t handle seeing an animal die a painful death.
I have to admit that I agree with the left on this one and I would like to see Palin explain her stance on this issue. However, I saw a common question posed in these blogs. The question usually went something like: How can someone who is pro-life support this cruelty to animals? I posted a reverse of the question on these blogs. My question was how someone who supports animal rights could also support abortion. No one has answered this question to my knowledge so far. What I would really like people on the left to explain is how they can be so concerned about polar bears and wolves and still vote for a Obama who wouldn’t even support the Federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy even supported this act. What this act does is state the any baby born alive should be considered a person. From time to time, abortions are botched and the infant is born alive. Obama doesn’t even want to recognize these infants as human. How can wolves be a higher priority than this? If this act is repealed wouldn’t it cause even more suffering?
Now, I want to hear from the right and left on this. I think I am the only one who has a consistent view on these two issues. I am pro-life and against the aerial hunting of wolves because it doesn’t give them any fighting chance. I don’t know how anyone who considers life to be valuable could support either one of these atrocities. Please leave comments.
Update:
I need to point out that it has been proven that this hunting was not for sport. It was done to protect the moose population in the area from the wolves. Wolves aren’t endangered in that part of Alaska.
Preservetherepublic's Weblog 
Wolfs should not get a fighting chance. They are being killed for a reason. As for the parallels one is killing animals, the other is killing people. They are not equal. Animals are food, killing children is murder.
gotea
September 14, 2008 at 2:11 am
You do realize we are animals, right? And animals are just as alive as we are. The thing I get so annoyed about is that you say there not as important, or I heard people say that they can’t think. Yes try can think, I know they can feel the same pain as us, so why are humans so selfish? God were not the most important ones, I think from a little bug to a human have the same right, all living things can feel the same thing, no matter how small.
Anonymous
May 8, 2012 at 9:24 pm
I absolutely agree that the lives of infants outweighs those of wolves. I said so in my blog actually. There are instances when wolves can be a nuisance and it is justifiable. However, that isn’t the case with aerial hunting. I have trouble with it because it isn’t very sporting. But, I would never equate the issue with abortion. Abortion is a greater sin as far as I am concerned.
preservetherepublic
September 14, 2008 at 2:18 am
Yes I see your point. There is really no reason to make it sporting if you are doing it for a reason. If you are doing it for sport, there is no reason to use a helicopter.
gotea
September 14, 2008 at 2:34 am
airplanes and copters are fun to fly… why not make a day of it 🙂 I’m j/k, btw… (though they are fun to fly).
xfree9
September 15, 2008 at 3:02 am
I am both pro human and animal life. However, I believe it all depends on what one bases their morals on. In my opinion. it is all about consistency in who we decide to give moral consideration to. Humans arbitrary discriminate against animals because they are of a different species (Speciesm) and pro-choicers discriminate against a fetus because of its symbiotic, in regards to the biology, relationship to the mother. In my opinion, both are sentient and therefore deserve equal consideration to life.
mark
September 15, 2008 at 7:39 am
coming in from the left:
the “born alive infant” is describesd as such: defines “born alive” to mean the complete expulsion or extraction from the mother of an infant, at any stage of development, who after that expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart..whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.”
the heart starts beating at 5 weeks, when an embryo is just 1/17th of an inch long. it is likely that this is why obama voted against it. abortions are legal in most states through the first trimester, so this would essentially preclude abortions from taking place. pretty crafty. for those who believe in freedom of a woman to choose, this vote makes sense. for those who are pro-life, of course, it would be completely unacceptable–as would killing wolves for sport. this is the palin conundrum. we judge a tree by its fruit.
bloominglater
September 17, 2008 at 4:39 am
I am pro-choice. That does not, in any way, mean that I am pro-abortion. To be pro-abortion would be to have the philosophy that every woman should be forced to have at least one abortion. Pro-choice and pro-life are not proper opposites of each other. Pro-choice is the philosophy that a woman has the choice of whether or not to carry a baby to term. It in no way advocates abortion as the only solution as the term pro-abortion or supporting abortion would do. I think you would be hard-pressed to find someone who is actively pro-abortion.
Pro-choice is about educated decisions and choices made by the people directly affected by the pregnancy and not a group of government officials imposing their will on the masses.
As to being pro-choice and pro-animal rights at the same time, I just don’t see any point to some types of hunting. I admittedly don’t know a lot about aerial wolf hunting, but is there any point? Does Palin land the plane and take the dead wolves home for dinner? That would be the only justification in my mind. Survival.
After all, aren’t wolves just as much created by God as man?
idealskeptic
September 17, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Sharks were created by god also, do you go swimming with them. Wolves are being killed to save populations of Moose is certain areas of Alaska. Hunting is natural. It is how you have gotten food for millions of years. It is also healthy for the ecosystems, a point many people want to ignore. Wolves aren’t cute and cuddly.
gotea
September 17, 2008 at 7:05 pm
Idealskeptic – That may be true for some people, but I call most Pro-Abortion for a reason. Some of the vicious attacks on Palin for deciding to go through with her last pregnancy even though she knew her child had Downs Syndome ahead of time. As we move forward with this new socialism that the Democrats are bringing, I could easily see abortion becoming mandatory for cases like hers. The “Pro-Choice” movement has shades of Hitler to it. I am also talking specifically about survivors of botched abortions here. Obama would not even vote for the Federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act when even Ted Kennedy supported it. As far as terminology goes, you could say I am “Pro-Choice” in a way. I just believe that the choice is to drop your pants or not and then you should accept the consequences.
Bloominglater – This bill was to support children with a chance of survival after a botched abortion. Obama is just plain evil.
gotea – I agree. I just don’t believe in hunting for sport, but I agree on the moose thing. I am finding out that is what Palin was actually supporting. This has only came out recently. I almost fell for one of the left’s half truths myself.
preservetherepublic
September 18, 2008 at 1:48 am
nope. read the bill: “born alive at any stage of development.” i’ll reserve my judgment that he is evil. if i were to judge, i would have to say that palin is “stupid.” it just doesn’t serve the conversation. ya know?
bloominglater
September 18, 2008 at 2:31 am
Even so, if the baby has a chance of survival why shouldn’t he/she be considered human? I don’t get it. This bill didn’t seek to stop abortions, but to give rights to these children born alive. A child in the early stages of development would have to chance of survival. This argument pretty much defines what abortion is. It is an attempt to stop the life of a living being. If it wasn’t, why would this be a big deal. Why do pro-abortionists (I can’t call them pro-choice, sorry) want these children to die even if they have a chance of survival? How are those cases not a murder? Thank God that even the majority of Congress had enough moral compass to support this bill! Even Clinton.
preservetherepublic
September 18, 2008 at 2:48 am
preservetherepublic – Are you a supporter of the death penalty? And war, do you suppor that? I have never understand how so many pro-life people can be supporters of the death penalty and war. Hunting in any form is trivial by comparison.
Since you seem so convinced that pro-choice could lead to mandatory abortions, maybe one of your future blog posts could lay out why you think that, with sources for your position of course. I’d be interested to see where this idea comes from because I have never, ever heard it.
Hitler? Really? You had to go there? That was really unnecessary, wholly out of bounds, and extremely offensive.
And please, in the future, check your facts. The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act was passed, unanimously, in July 2002 and signed into law by Bush on August 5, 2002. Barack Obama was not even ELECTED until November 2004. So not only would he not vote fot it, he could not have voted for it. So unless he’s gone on record as saying that he would not have supported it, had he even been in the Senate, (and given that it was passed unanimously) you do not have a valid argument.
idealskeptic
September 18, 2008 at 2:58 am
There was also an Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act which is almost identical to the federal one. As to the Hitler comparison, that would be a good blog post in the future.
I support war, when it is necessary. I didn’t agree with the original decision to go into Iraq, but we are there now and need to finish the job. If we pull out too soon, it will cost more lives in the future.
preservetherepublic
September 18, 2008 at 4:04 am
One more thing! For my point on how abortion can lead to talk of mandatory abortions, take a look at this article http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/feb/06022109.html – The subject has already come up in Holland. You may also want to Google “mandatory abortion” and China. That’s just something for you Obama socialists to chew on. My question for you pro-choicers out there is: Would you oppose mandatory abortion? I just posted on a blog recently that blamed people with my stance for overpopulation. The thought process is already there. I wish mandatory abortion was as far fetched as it sounds.
preservetherepublic
September 19, 2008 at 8:55 pm
While this video upsets me because I feel for animals being hunted, I think protection of our own human babies should come first. I don’t think this one topic should be the reason we vote for Obama. I think that’s ubsurd. Obama associates himself with terrorists and has no value whatsoever on human life. THAT is a reason not to vote for someone.
Karen
October 23, 2008 at 6:36 pm
idealskeptic-
You cannot possibly be pro-choice and not pro-abortion. If you are pro-choice, you are for women and their CHOICE of murdering their baby. It is against the law to murder. It’s not about the government telling us what to do and not to do. The government tells us all the time that murder is wrong and there are consequences for it.
If you think the government is trying to control us now, just wait until Obama gets in office. Taking our tax money and doing what he wants with it is just the beginning.
Karen
October 23, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Karen, I agree. Abortion isn’t about choice at all. The choice is made before the bedroom. Pregnancy is a consequence of that choice. Abortion is decision made by someone who is immature and selfish enough to take a life in order to dodge responsibility. Having abortion legalized is just as ridiculous as saying the government should put safety nets under every building because someone may “choose” to jump off of one without wanting to suffer the consequences of gravity. If someone doesn’t want a baby they should get off of their back. I will defend their right to sleep around, but I won’t defend their right to avoid the consequences.
preservetherepublic
October 23, 2008 at 7:18 pm
One more thing, I never would equate animal rights with abortion. I also need to update this story. The aerial hunting of the wolves was being done to protect the moose population in the area. It had to be done. It wasn’t for sport at all like the video claimed.
preservetherepublic
October 23, 2008 at 7:19 pm
I think you put it wonderfully. I’m all about choice too, the choice whether to do the deed, or not do the deed. Everyone knows that when you have sex, the possiblity of pregnancy is there. And to know that you have the option of killing your baby I think makes the decision for some easier to lay on their backs. If that option is taken away, and education improves about sex and the consequences of it, people may take the decision of whether or not to have sex more seriously.
And there usually is a reason to allow hunting. Hunting is one of those things that God told us we were allowed to do. We are the superior beings and Gov. Palin is making a judgment on whether or not to protect the wolf, or the moose, and she made her choice. I think that should make her a stronger candidate for VP because she can make those tough choices.
Karen
October 23, 2008 at 7:45 pm
I believe the basis for the entire “pro-choice” argument is weak. It utterly amazes me that the same people who preach to us of the sanctity of choice are the first individuals who will tell you that you can not smoke because it is bad for your lungs, you can’t eat foods cooked in trans- fats because it leads to obesity, etc. At the end of the day this argument is about the individuals ability to ultimatly alude one thing… personal responsibility. Many times I have had “pro-choicers” try to support their view point with the rape, incest rebutal, but I always walk away asking one question… Of the times I’ve personally known someone who have had abortions, did they go through with this because they were raped? Were they a victim of incest? Or were they just celebrating their supreme court given freedom by just choosing to have an abortion. I would believe that people do not have abortions simply because they have this as an option. The choice to have an abortion is a calculated decision that is made to avert responsibility for their actions. Call it what it is! Don’t put a pretty face on it.
sean
December 26, 2008 at 4:04 am
Heh I am literally the first reply to your great article?
Dee Lutz
May 28, 2010 at 3:14 am
Appreciate you sharing, great blog post.Thanks Again. Really Cool. aggcbfcddcek
Johnk634
May 19, 2014 at 1:44 am