Protecting Animals is good, Protecting Babies is Extremist?

by Natalie

This is an article about the proposal to outlaw sex with animals in certain states where it is not expressly prohibited. Good. I am all in favor of outlawing sex with animals. You may be wondering how I'm drawing a comparison between this and abortion. I'll assure you, most things can be made to draw a comparison with abortion because if you strip everything away and look at the simple facts, we as a society ignore the plight of unborn babies. I just read about the Dept of Homeland Security issuing warnings on domestic terrorists, and specifically stating that people or groups who pick out one issue (like abortion) are in a category that is likely to be a domestic terrorist. This got me to thinking. I wonder if the members of PETA are in that group too?

This article is stating that some animals have been injured so badly in their sexual abuse that they have died. Some are just injured and maimed. Some of the offenders have a higher incidence of already being or becoming a sexual predator of humans. All of these are great reasons to outlaw the practice. But what about one other reason? What about the fact that it is forbidden in the Bible? There is another thing there that is forbidden, it's called murder. We, as a society, have decided to negate murder if it was due to a mother's choice. If the same baby is murdered, in utero, by someone else, against the mother's will, a murder charge can be brought in some states--depending on the state of gestation. But if dear old mom decides she wishes to "terminate the pregnancy" then she is well within her rights, and we seem to think this is socially acceptable. Sure, we pretty it up by stating that it is not ideal, and that we would rather it not happen, but we do not punish it. How can this be?

I have just included an article for you to read which shows that most states, and now some others, will punish a person for choosing to have sexual relations with an unwilling animal. The article even states, "The act of forcing a living creature to engage in a sexual activity without the ability of consent cannot simply be viewed as a personal choice — no more than forcing a child or an impaired adult would be." Don't get me wrong, I'm an animal lover, and a rational person, so I whole-heartedly agree with this statement. But then, as a rational society with any standard of morals, how can we apply this line of thinking to animals, but not to unborn HUMAN babies? Sure this proposed law is discussing unwanted sexual activity, and I'm talking about murder. Maybe it's apples and oranges. I certainly think that animals and unborn human children are apples and oranges. In this instance though, one would think that we might give a little bit more credence to the fruit of the human variety. I also think it's important to note here that, while an animal could never consent to sex with a human, that animal is not entirely defenseless. At the very minimum, he/she can bare his/her teeth in protest, at most he/she can do some real damage with those teeth. On the converse, a babe in the womb can do nothing. Depending on the type of abortion being performed, there is no warning, no sense of impending danger, and most certainly no chance to outrun his/her attacker. God created animals, and they are beautiful. But why must we, as the supposed more intelligent species, place our young beneath that of animals? I'm sure most people have seen a "save the polar bears" sign during the election recently. Good. I'm proud of those people in exercising their right to free speech. But I am disgusted by the fact that most, if not all, who displayed those signs think that our unborn children don't deserve the same protections and defense of life.

I am so sick of hearing pro-choice supporters say that it is a woman's choice, and we can't infringe upon that. If this is true when we're talking about human babies, how does the same not apply to animals and humans? Why is a man not able to just "choose" to engage in sex with his dog/horse/goat, at will? Why does the thought of such a thing turn our stomachs, as a whole, but the thought of abortion is just a necessary evil? If we're not able to infringe on a mother's right not to mother, then why does it stop after said baby is born? Why do we punish a new mother who drowns her child? Shouldn't she get some credit for her choice too? Maybe she decided she just couldn't handle it, or it wasn't working out with her romantic relationship, or she wanted to go back to school and make a future for herself and any future children? Oh right, I forget, we've got to argue about whether "it" is actually a baby or some alien being living and growing inside "its" mother's womb.

Maybe I'm the deluded one, but I'm thinking that might not be the case. I continually argue that it is a case of semantics which has been conjured up to make the supporters of abortion better able to sleep at night. I've heard too many times, "I would never have an abortion, but I would never tell another woman she couldn't have one." Well, I for one would never shoot my child, and yet I still have no qualms about telling another mother that she can't do the same! Why? Because it is just wrong! We, as a civilized people, are not allowed to kill our own species. Heck, we're not even entitled to kill a dog, lest we be charged with animal cruelty (something I entirely support). But when the victim is a child who hasn't yet escaped the womb, all bets are off.