Parallels of veganism and pro-lifeism

When talking about the comparisons of the issues of abortion and animal farming + exploitation, it seems that there are two similar sides that we can look at. The similarities between vegan arguments and pro-life arguments, and the similarities between pro animal exploitation arguments and pro-choice arguments.

Similarities between veganism and pro-lifeism:
*Both are centered around the idea of respecting life, especially that of the particularly innocent, vulnerable, voiceless, helpless, defenseless etc.

*Right to life is present in both. With pro-lifeism, of course the unborn child is being killed so a focus is put on the fact that they have a right to not be killed and to continue their lives, and with veganism, animals get killed and thus a focus is put on them having a right to not be killed and to continue their lives.

*Right to not be harmed and bodily autonomy, as well as the right to not be seen as property to be disposed of as one sees fit, are present in both. In an abortion, the child is dismembered with medical tools or sucked apart or poisoned etc. This harms them and takes away their bodily rights because their bodies are harmed and destroyed by force. They are considered their parents’ property and they are at the will of their parents.

With animal farming/consuming/exploiting, there are many different ways in which the bodies of animals are harmed and they are treated as objects and their bodily rights are taken away as well, whether that be abuse like being beaten over the head in some factory farms, or the stress of being artificially inseminated and having to give birth and being constantly milked, or going through training in circuses etc. They are literally considered the property of farmers and are at the will of those who farm them, train them, or are otherwise considered their owners.

*Both point out that if one can't stand to look at gruesome pictures that are the end result of what they are supporting (abortion pictures/slaugtherhouse pictures), then they don't want to be supporting it in the first place. The idea is that if one finds it offensive, then you are saying that something you support is offensive...so why are you supporting it?

*Both see the genocide that is happening right before our eyes, and understand that it is prejudice and oppression. Both have trouble understanding why after learning our lesson with past genocides, we still continue with this one. Some on each side make comparisons to the holocaust and slavery/racism as well as sexism.

*Both mention that abortion or animal consuming/using aren't necessary, and talk about the other options that one has. For why should we go out of our way to cause all this death and destruction when we don't have to? For abortion, there is adoption (of which you can have open, closed, or semi-open, and they are free to adopt out), safe-haven/safe-surrender/baby-moses laws which let you leave the child at any police station, hospital, or fire department, no questions asked, kinshipcare or guardianshipcare, where you give the child to a family member or close friend to be raised, and this can be long-term or short-term, or a ton of options for help if the woman does think she can be a parent with the right help. That goes into various avenues such as financial, daycare, baby drives, housing, rights for pregnant women at school or in the workplace and things to make it easier like desks that fit the stomachs of pregnant people or set ups for her to work or learn from home etc. There's also talk of artificial wombs.

With veganism, there's literally a vegan version of everything. There are tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of edible plants that we have discovered so far and literally a vegan version of everything. If it's possible to make it non-vegan, it's possible to make it vegan. There are tons of vegan options at every store and you can veganize fast food meals as well. Those who are poor can be vegan, as many of us are. There are vegan leathers and soaps and this and that and the other.

*Right to rescue is present in both. In the 80s and 90s, the pro-life rescue movement was underway with pro-lifers occupying preborn slaughterhouses to save the women and children inside. There has been a modern resurgence of this lately, led by secular progressive pro-life activists such as in PAAU. Animal rights activists also rescue animals from factory farms and other such things, such as with the recent Smithfield Trial which was a victory for members of DXE who saved a few pigs from slaughter.

*Right to continue living so as to continue to use the other rights and choices they would have is present in both. Pro-lifers often talk about how the most important right is the right to life, as all other rights would be meaningless without it as you wouldn't be alive to get to use them. Vegans often point out that animals are here for their own reasons, just like us, to have their own lives and do their own things. They aren't here to be objects for the use of humans. That brings me to a related issue on the reverse...

Similarities between non-veganism and pro-choiceism:
*Both use a "choice" argument, and forget the victim at hand and their choices, and act like the perpetrator needs to have a choice to harm the victim. With animal using and consuming, they think it has to be the ones partaking in the using or consuming that need to have a choice to do so. Often you'll l hear something like, "It's my choice to eat meat. You can't infringe on other people's choices. If you don't eat meat, that's your own choice, but you can't tell me what to do." With abortion it's the same thing, with the mother getting to choose to take her unborn child to a facility to be dismembered and killed. "It's my choice to get an abortion. You can't infringe on other people's choices. If you wouldn't get an abortion, that's your own choice, but you can't tell me what to do."

*Similarly, both use the bodies of those committing the act instead of the bodies of the victims to act like somehow disregarding one's bodily autonomy is the bodily right of another. For abortion, "It's my body, my choice." and sometimes "If it's in my body I can kill it." For animal consuming/wearing, "It's my body, my choice. I get to choose what goes in/on my body." Both actions require harming and killing someone else's body, but only the bodies of the ones doing said harming will ever be acknowledged by these sides. Forgetting the victim and acting like it's the other side that is in the wrong because they are infringing on the rights of those taking away the rights of others is an old way to defend discrimination.

*Both exploit women, those who are pregnant, and the female reproductive system, break up the mother and baby bond, and kill children. The abortion industry and pro-choice movement tell pregnant people that they cannot be mothers in whatever hard situations they are in so they have no other choice but to abort, or that their children are not children but just clumps of cells. This is exploitative and coercive. Abortion pits mother against child, breaking up the mother-baby bond and kills the pregnant person's baby for a profit. Many post-abortive people grieve their dead children afterward and develop PTSD or depression.

The dairy, pork, veal, and eggs industries exploit female farm animals by forcing them to get pregnant so that they can produce milk or more animals to farm, stealing their babies so that the milk can go to humans or to kill the babies who are of no use to the egg industry or can become veal, and send the female children back into the same systems their mothers are in. This not only exploits the mothers and kills the children but also breaks up the mother and baby bond. Mothers are known to grieve their children who were taken from them.

*Both use overpopulation as an excuse to kill the victims. With abortion, they say that humans are overpopulated and thus we shouldn't have anymore, as well as that since they think the earth is overpopulated, they'll have a horrible life so we might as well not allow them to exist so as to spare them a life in the overpopulated world. With animal consuming/using, they say that animals are overpopulated so we need to kill them so that their overpopulation doesn't get in the way.

*Both use things such as pain, sentience, intelligence, size, looks, and ability to contribute to society as a way to belittle the victims and excuse killing and harming. They say that those who have yet to be born can't feel pain, aren't conscious, aren't intelligent, are so small, and that that therefore makes them lesser than us and so we can kill them. They say that those of other species can't feel pain (the classic "fish don't feel pain" myth for example), aren't conscious, aren't intelligent, animals like insects are so small, and that that therefore makes them lesser than us and so we can kill them.

Both of these not only are incorrect *at the very least* for some of those who have yet to be born and some animals, but also forget that there are many born humans, such as infants and other children and those along the wide spectrum of disabilities and diseases who also fall in those categories, yet they understand then that those things don't matter at all. How can you argue that if one isn't intelligent, they can be killed, if you understand that a born human who is mentally challenged needs even more protection than the average person?

It's a might makes right attitude as well. "I'm bigger than you/smarter than you etc., so since I can kill you because you have less abilities than me, I should be allowed to have that choice." Discriminating against a group based off of their abilities, or Ableism, is another classic way to commit discrimination, and is closely tied to eugenics. It has been said that you have to look at someone's differences and act like that makes you better than them, in order to get people to successfully oppress a group. For the unborn it's dehumanization, for other animals it's speciesism.

*Both use the arguments that these things have been happening for so long/are natural, and that people will still do them even if it's outlawed. Abortion is ancient so women will still find a way to do it they say. Animal eating is ancient and what we need to be doing they say. God put animals on earth for us to use they say. God aborts babies all the time they say.

*Both try to brush off the act by talking about the fact that it is legal, as if somehow something being legal therefore makes it ok, or that somehow you shouldn’t advocate for the other side as if things can’t change from legal to illegal.

*Both try to find ways to defend at least some abortion or animal killing/harming. With abortion they say "well it's ok if it's below a certain amount of weeks/well it's ok if she was raped/well it's ok if the child has a disability etc." With animal killing they usually go for the ones labeled "humane" "organic" "grass fed" “cage free" “free rage" without realizing the problems with these, or they point to specific animals. Or they'll just say "I wouldn't eat a dog but a pig is different."

*Ultimately, both look at the differences we have from these groups rather than our similarities and use that as a way to exert power and control over them and "other" them to the point of death, dismemberment, and exploitation.