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.

Subscribe For Latest Updates

Sign up to receive stimulating conservative Christian commentary in your inbox.

Invalid email address
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
  1. It is mind boggling!!! If I am following your line of thinking correctly, you would have to have a case of animal cruelty in which the offspring of the animal dies in it’s womb in order to have a dialouge about the subject.

  2. I am an animal rights advocate and I would no more hurt a fetus then I would harm an animal. The problem with this whole article is that it assumes all animal rights people are pro-choice. Where does that information come from? Generalizing a whole group of people based on inaccurate assumptions equals a useless article. Try doing some research next time before publishing.
    .-= Cheryl´s last blog ..Stop Michael Vick – Join the Campaign! =-.

  3. So, giving fetuses the same right as animals is the solution? So we should make fetus bacon? Or chicken-fried fetus? Maybe we should artificially inseminate the fetus and milk it? Animals don’t have it any better than fetuses, or maybe you eat fetuses three times a day. Or maybe everyone in Minnesota is vegan. Think critically, y’all. Animals have it pretty bad. And they are already past even the latest-term abortion. This comparison is absolutely absurd.

      1. @Shane Vander Hart,

        In the ways that matter, EKG, heartbeat, pain-sensitivity, animals are exactly like us, or rather us like them. I know this is unbelievable but the earth is not 6,000 years old and humans evolved from and still are: animals! Sentient beings suffer, no matter species. What is absurd is that we’ve compartmentalized some animals as being food, and some as worthy having protections in the form of rights. I’m not sure where to draw the line on abortion, but I do know that my body is my property and I would not want anyone telling me what to do with it. And here we get back to animals. By law, animals are our property, and barring very few restictions we are able to treat them as we please. To try and raise fetus’ right status to that of chattel property status would do limited good, considering that as my property, if I no longer wish to keep my dog or cat, I can choose to have him or her euthanized by a vet at any time during his or her life, legally. Sounds like late-late term abortion to me.

  4. Maybe, Shane, you should do some research on non-human animal rights before commenting on them vs. human or fetus rights. Or rights in general. Start with Bentham, Kant, go to Singer, Regan, and graduate at Francione.

Comments are closed.

You May Also Like

Only One in Five Americans Believe the Climate Change Debate is Settled

A Rasmussen Poll shows only 20% of likely US voters believe the scientific debate over climate change is settled including 27% of Democratic voters.

Findings: Abortion Not Necessary to Save Mother’s Life

International Symposium on Maternal Health held in Dublin, Ireland, confirms that abortion is NOT a medical necessity

Be For Things More Than You’re Against Things

Kelvey Vander Hart: It is far more interesting and effective to be for things more than you are against things.

Church Buildings

I recently learned that a more affluent church I know of may…