A Pro-Life Court may be better for Animals than a Pro-Choice Court

court1As a civil libertarian, a progressive, and a feminist, I have always believed that the woman has the right to decide who gets to go into her vagina and who gets to come out of it.

The idea of vagina police and government intrusion into the doctor-patient relationship is abhorrent.

That most opponents of women being able to control their own reproductive systems also oppose sex education and birth control speaks to the religious authoritarianism of the pro-life movement.

I find it difficult to comprehend how anyone who supports war, the death penalty, opposes life saving universal healthcare, etc, could possible be considered pro-life. Yet most pro-lifers hold those bizarre pro-death points of view. They are actually pro-birth, not pro-life, as their concern for the unborn ends at birth, and those once born are on their own.

Even so, on closely examining my own values, I find that I am hypocritical in criticizing those who are pro-life.

As a vegan and animal rights advocate, I oppose the slaughter and consumption of animals. Were it within my power, I would have government banning the ownership of animals, murdering animals, and trafficking in animal corpses.

I would also ban people eating them.

Which basically means I support stomach police! Not so different from vagina police in terms of government regulation of people’s conduct.

Most animal rights advocates oppose animal slaughter and consumption for ethical reasons. We do not believe we should inflict torture, enslavement, and murder upon any other creature.

In contrast, most opponents of abortion do so for religious reasons, although most express concerns that fetuses suffer when aborted. Rarely, however, does the concern seem extend to the already born or to non-human animals. But if such concern were to be embraced, we would not be very far apart.

On paper, it would seem that a grand coalition could be forged between animal rights people and pro-life people, banning both slaughter and abortion, and for the same reasons: that taking life and inflicting pain and suffering is morally wrong.

I won’t hold my breath! Lol! Most carnists are more interested in their steaks, bacon, and burgers than they are in fetuses.

But the observation that a potential commonality exists between the two positions could mean that legal analysts, lawyers, and courts could make the connection as well.

Since the Supreme Court decided Roe v Wade, we have had a pro-choice Supreme Court. With the possibility of Donald Trump becoming president, much speculation and discussion of the make up of the court and it’s potential rulings has been common in legal and political circles.

It is possible that in the next years we could see the first pro-life court in decades.

While we can easily prognosticate about rulings on access to abortions and women’s healthcare issues, what would such a court do on animal protection and animal rights issues?

I offer a counter-intuitive and radical guesstimate that such a court could prove much more animal friendly than any court in history. And certainly more animal friendly than the current and recent courts have been.

Most so called “liberals” on the Supreme Court are only liberal on social issues. The two most recent justices appointed to the court, Sotomayor and Kagan, are social liberals, but conservatives and corporatists on economic issues, as is a majority of the court.

The current pro-choice, corporatist court has been anything but animal friendly.

Animal protection issues pit corporations and profits against animal organizations with little political clout and even less economic power. As a rule, this and recent courts have sided with corporate interests.

But what happens if the majority of the court is not beholden to Wall Street and corporations? What happens if the court becomes composed of a majority of pro-life justices and libertarian scholars? What happens if morality and ethics become the balance on the scales of justice in place of corporate interests and trade associations? What if the court entertained pain and suffering when deciding animal cases as they would when deciding abortion cases?

I am not saying it will happen. I am saying it is more likely to happen with Trump appointees than with Clinton appointees.

And I am saying that the current court, just as the current administration, has been a horror for animals.

A Trump administration could not be worse for them. Nor could a Trump court.

 

 

Author’s Notes:

I am unaware of any other blog with the Armory’s mission of radicalizing the animal movement. I certainly hope I am not alone, and that there are similar sentiments being expressed by comrades unknown to me.

If you know of other blogs dedicated to animal rights and the defeat of capitalism, please comment with a link.

• Be sure to follow the Armory and share it with your Facebook friends and email contacts, as well as on Twitter, Google, and all other social media platforms. Our influence and effectiveness is dependent upon you!

Natasha Sainsbury, of Good Karma Graphic Design, has joined Armory of the Revolution as Editor, and is responsible for the transformation of the blog’s appearance. Visit and follow her blog V Kind.

If you are not already subscribed to the Armory, please do so before you leave.

There’s a button to Follow us in the upper right sidebar.

• Be sure to visit Armory of the Revolution’s new commissary and bookstore: The Supply Depot

You will find recommended reading on Animal Rights, revolutionary theory, politics, economics, religion, science, and atheism. There is also a section of supplies for animal liberationists, hunt saboteurs, and social revolutionaries. This is all brand new, and we will be adding lots more merchandise in the near future!

Feel free to comment. I encourage open discussion and welcome other opinions. I moderate comments because this blog has been attacked by hunters and right wing trolls. I approve comments that are critical as well as those which agree with me. Comments that I will not tolerate are those that are spam, threatening, disrespectful, or which promote animal abuse and cruelty

If you support the Amory’s work and mission, please help us grow.

Just $3 per month will allow is to advertise!

donate2

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “A Pro-Life Court may be better for Animals than a Pro-Choice Court

  1. I agree that to be pro-human-abortion and an animal rights activist is hypocritical. However, I am pro-choice BEFORE 18 weeks (the baby could be aborted at this point and possibly survive in an incubator and definitely personally anti-abortion at any stage. I have been throwing that loop out at anti-animal rights protagonists for years and they do feel stunned when I say so – its not what they expect so they are confused. But obviously I’m going to receive your premise that this SCOTUS will regard animals’ lack of legal rights as tongue-in-cheek. Because you know that their world is not one of rationale thinking since conscience as their guide brings them to conclusions that they love animals – with salt and pepper.

    Like

  2. Once a motorist pulled up to me at a stop light trying to get me to answer his question: “Are you for abortion or against abortion?” Why did he feel the need to question me? Probably because my bumper stickers had anti-meat messages. But maybe before dudes like that go around trying to question people, they should first disclose whether or not they are consumers of animal products. Well, just to annoy the guy I replied, “I don’t really care.” He said, “Hmph!” Then sped away. What a loser!!! LOL.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s