These 2 positions are commonly though as as leftist positions, but are they mutailly exclusive? Can we have animal rights w/o reconizing the rights of a human fetus? I don’t see a problem with the ‘opposite’ position that the political right has to honor, pro life and placing human needs above that of animals, but I see a real conflict on the left. How can a far leftist justify one w/o the other?
I don’t know about you, but I’m too scared to ask the people I know that think this way why they think this way.
I think for a good discussion you’ll need to define more about you mean by ‘animal rights’. I don’t think that animals need to be tested on for a lot of things. I don’t think they should be cruelly abused either. I’m not a member of PETA but I do check products I buy to make sure that they’re not tested on animals. I’m not a vegetarian but I do look for meats and poultry that is raised humanely. I’m also very pro-choice.
(Something tells me that this thread might fare better in GD)
Fair enough, but I don’t know if I have a answer for you. Maybe a little background will help, maybe not, but here it is anyway. I was driving back from work today, listening to the radio and hearing commentary about how a new law is a set back for the “pro choice crowd” at the same time passing a heard of cows. It got me thinking the only way to justify abortion is to also remove animal rights also. Basially placing humans higher then all (including the unborn humans). Don’t know if that helps.
I’m a liberal and am pro-choice but not really all that much for animal rights. I don’t think they deserve to be tortured and should be given as much room as possible to be comfortable but it honestly doesn’t bother me that much if chickens are crowded, that calves are killed for veal, or that rabbits are used to test the latest mascara line.
It’s about ego. In my mind, humans are more important. I myself could never hunt or kill an animal (except for insects and snakes) but I won’t scream murder when others do so long as they’re not unneccesarily sadistic or wasteful.
I’m pro-choice but anti animal rights. I guessing that’s not hypocritical according the OP logic? 
That’s actually a really good question. I’m not “far-left,” but I am left of center. I am pro choice for several reasons. There’s a distinction that most conservatives do not see in “pro choice” and “pro abortion.” I support a woman’s right to choose whether or not she will have a d&c. I don’t support abortion as birth control. It’s a horrible choice to have to make, ever. Any woman who has ever had one or been there for a friend who has, will tell you, it’s not just in, out and back to life, happy go lucky not a care in the world. It’s painful both emotionally and physically, and has far reaching effects.
I’m not rabidly for animal rights, but at the same time, I find animal cruelty repugnant. The animal in question can feel pain, is aware of what is happening to it, and is powerless to protect itself. Do I believe in animal research? Certainly, we would not have many of the medical advances we have today without it. But, I believe it’s possible to conduct that research without turning it into animal cruelty. I’m aware that there are some who will disagree with that statement.
It is questionable whether or not a fetus can feel pain, and at what point it develops awareness. The procedure involved is as humane as medical science can make it, and no torture is involved. I’m aware there are some who will disagree with that statement, too. While it may seem like a cop out, it’s about the only distinction I can make.
Of course not. Why would they be?
Again, of course. Why not?
These two topics really have nothing to do with each other. People have various opinions about animal rights, with various reasons for their stances. People also have different views on abortion and on whether a fetus even has rights, again with different reasons for their positions.
I don’t understand why you think there has to be any relationship between a person’s thoughts about abortion and thoughts about animals. There might be a tie-in for some people, but it’s certainly not true for everyone.
Pro-choice, but animal rights is just plain dumb (Where should it end? Give dogs the right to vote?*)
Animals are not people. Period. While I agree that animals should be treated whenever possible with kindness, to think of them as being equivalent to humans in pure soft-headed anthropocentrism. It gives thinking liberals a bad name.
*Then again, that may be an improvement. 
Maureen beat me to it, but our views are very similar.
I love animals, but I don’t value a rat’s life above mine – not that I think said rat should be tortured to death in the name of cosmetics. As for abortion, I’m one of those women whose life could potentially be threatened by a pregnancy. I do not like the idea, and I would think long and hard, but there’s a chance that I would have to get one or else endanger my health. Some pro-lifers would deny me the procedure even so. That deeply offends me. On the other hand, while I don’t think it should be written into law, I don’t think abortion should be viewed by anybody casually, and should not be done lightly.
I do think you need to quite carefully define ‘animal rights’ so as to avoid entering straw man territory.
PETA represent one kind of animal rights. Ducks Unlimited represent another. Peter Singer represents another again. The Humane Society, your local vetrenarian, Earth First!, the ALF, etc … None of these are likely to agree with each other on every point.
And I would suggest that if you’d like anyone to come in and defend ‘animal rights’ to you, that you carefully consider that not all ‘animal rights’ defenders are equivalent with the most extreme example you can think of.
IANAFL, but, that may be the crux of the issue. Yes, we may associate these positions as jointly “left”, but are they necessarily jointly “left”? These are both “left” in that they opposed some policies that have been supported historically by the so-called “establishment” in the Western world. Plus some “leftist” organizations and movements (and their right-wing critics) DO seem to expect members in good standing to support both positions. But does that reflect a common basis or rather a convergence of interests? They can be separate issues all right…
In spite of the generalized attitude about striking out against “corporate” interests in current Animal Rights activism, it is definitely not a necessary trait of the “left” in the sense of Marxist-Leninist – AFAIK, there was no lack of pharmaceutical labs, slaughterhouses, fur farms, and household pets in the Soviet Union. OTOH there are religions whose devotees must avoid hurting animals – and being a pious observant of your religion is commonly associated to being on the “right”.
I’m pretty much with Maureen and Whiterabbit on this, but I will add in:
I don’t see being pro-choice as an issue of a fetus’s rights. I see it as a woman’s right to control her own body and not be forced into having a child she doesn’t want. (She didn’t get HERSELF pregnant, after all.) Whether I think of a fetus as a life is irrelevant. If I do, then I won’t have an abortion myself. But that doesn’t mean I can make that decision for other people. You can easily be pro-choice and anti-abortion: if you don’t want an abortion, don’t have one. But don’t infringe on others.
So this in no way conflicts with my belief that spraying cosmetics into the eyes of puppies is unnecessary. I think PETA folks go to far, though. If cancer can be cured by testing on rats (or even dogs if it comes to it) then so be it.
How do you see that these opinions are mutually exclusive?
jeevwoman pretty much hit the nail on the head for me. I believe in a woman’s right to control her reproduction, to not have to bear a child if she doesn’t wish it. (I also believe in responsible use of contraceptives by both men and women, but they do have a failure rate.) This does not have to mean that I’d ever necessarily set out to have one, or wholeheartedly recommend them as “backup” contraception.
I don’t see how that contradicts caring about the welfare of living animals, and ensuring they are not mistreated, or thinking that vegetarianism is a more healthy and less cruel dietary choice.
The two positions are wholly consistent, at least if you’ve read some AR philosophers. Keep in mind that the quintessential AR argument is that adult, mentally normal mammals should have, all things being equal, a right to live their life free of interference by moral people. (I tried to make every word in that argument necessary and important). Oysters aren’t covered by AR folks, for the most part.
That said, AR folks tend to base morality not off of genetic makeup, but rather off of ability to appreciate the right. A dog has no right to vote because such a right is meaningless to a dog. A tomato has no right to not be tortured because torture is meaningless to a tomato (and don’t pull out the “Secret Life of Plants” canard, please – that’s some bogus stuff).
Similarly, a fetus can be said to have no right to a continued existence, because its current existence means nothing to it. A fetus, unlike a terrier, has no desires, no concept of self that lasts over time, no interests, no ability to feel pain or pleasure.
The positions are wholly consistent; indeed, I’d suggest that belief in AR necessitates a pro-choice position.
Daniel