John Piper contrasting abortion and Minnesota laws on cruelty to animals brings up a great point:
In the “Minnesota Cruelty to Animals Statutes . . . Police Regulations,” Statute 343.21 subdivision 1 says, “No person shall . . . unjustifiably injure, maim, mutilate or kill any animal.”
Subdivision 7 says, “No person shall willfully instigate or in any way further any act of cruelty to any animal.”
The penalty: “A person who fails to comply with any provision of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor.”
Question: If the eight-week-old human fetus (with beating heart, EKG, brain waves, thumb-sucking, pain sensitivity, finger-grasping, and genetic humanity) is not a human person with rights under the 14th Amendment (“no state shall deprive any person of life … without due process of law”), then is the fetus at least an animal?
Could we at least charge abortion clinics with cruelty to animals under Statute 343.21 subdivision 7?
Why is it illegal to “maim, mutilate and kill” an animal in Minnesota, but not a pain-sensitive unborn human being? (emphasis mine)
I’m sure many states are similar, why is it that some in one breath (rightly) be concerned about the welfare of animals, but yet at the same time be pro-choice? It’s mind-boggling to me.
Latest posts by Shane Vander Hart (see all)
- Politics and Our Christian Witness - December 13, 2017
- I Declare My Independence From Party Politics - December 12, 2017
- University of Iowa Sued by Christian Group They Kicked Off Campus - December 11, 2017