An Exploration of Animal Rights, Abortion, and Moral Permissibility

This essay delves into the complex and often controversial intersection of animal rights and abortion, examining the arguments and ethical frameworks put forth by scholars and activists. The author explores the core tenets of the animal rights movement, focusing on the concept of sentient beings and the debate surrounding morally permissible killings. The essay draws parallels between the treatment of animals and fetuses, particularly in the context of veganism and pro-choice stances. It highlights the concept of morally permissible killings, especially in cases of self-defense, and the ethical consistency of these viewpoints. The essay also touches on the role of animal sanctuaries and shelters in the contemporary world, critiquing their effectiveness in providing suitable habitats and respecting the individuality of animals. References to articles by Abbate, Boyle, Hua, Milligan and others are included. The overall discussion centers on the philosophical debates and ethical considerations surrounding these sensitive topics, contributing to a deeper understanding of moral consistency and the challenges faced by animal rights activists.

Running head: ANIMAL RIGHTS AND ABORTION
ANIMAL RIGHTS AND ABORTION
Name of the student
Name of the university
Author Note

1ANIMAL RIGHTS AND ABORTION
Question 1
Animal rights activism and movements have gained impetus throughout the twentieth and
the twenty-first century. The most remarkable outcome of animal rights movement till date is the
activism against slaughter of animals and the vogue of “veganism”. However, the vegan or the
strict vegetarian animal right activists have been observed sometimes to be having advocating for
rights to abortion. According to the animal rights scholars and activists, animals and fetuses, both
are sentient beings, therefore, both deserve as well as have the rights to live and breathe.
However, in certain cases of extremity, emergency and sensitivity, questions might arise in case
of “morally permissible killings” of animals as well as the fetuses. According to the article of
Abbate, an act of abortion, according to the pro-abortion activists is morally permissible in
certain sensitive cases where the health of the woman (the mother) is at the risk or in cases where
the mothers might lose their life by keeping and giving birth to the baby. The fetuses, in the
respective case, is often considered to be an “innocent threat”, a living being who does not create
anything wrong but can possess threat because of its existence, in certain sensitive biological
cases for which neither the fetus nor the mother is responsible or accountable (Boyle, Minzee
and Longhofer). The vegan animal rights activists believe in the morally permissible killings of
the animals in certain cases, such as the act of self protection and self defense. For instance, if a
dog loses its sanity after a few years of domestication, it is kept in confinement or rather killed in
order to save the people from its disturbances. Just as the vegan animal rights activists believe in
the morally permissible killings of animals in cases of self-defense and self-protection, similarly,
their ethical consistency also harmonizes with the fact of “morally permissible killings” of the
fetuses, rather, morally permissible abortions in certain cases where the woman’s life is at stake
due to unnatural complications of pregnancy (Abbate). The philosophy of morally permissible

2ANIMAL RIGHTS AND ABORTION
killings of fetuses and animals, though controversial, yet has been a subject of debate and
discussion.
Question 2
Sanctuaries and shelters of the animals have been made purposely to provide the animals
with a safe haven after they have been discarded from the biomedical test laboratories and
centers. The economists and social scientists have stated that animal shelters are the outcomes of
neo-liberalization of animal rights in the contemporary world. However, the saddest part is that
even though shelters provide the animals with non-captivity measures, they are still not
conservationist or preservationist in their approach (Hua and Ahuja). The sanctuaries fail to
provide “good” conditions to the animals which it promises to provide. Sanctuaries are often
observed to be working poorly when it comes about the individuality of the sentient animals
(Hua and Ahuja). Sanctuaries face space deficiencies when it comes to provide a spacious
habitat to the animals. Animals are born free, not to be kept confined (Milligan). Unfortunately,
the sanctuaries sometimes fail to provide such situations to the non-laboring animals. Animal
shelters, even though have modified themselves with various anti captivity measures and animal
health provisions, need to work more on themselves in the future.

3ANIMAL RIGHTS AND ABORTION
References:
Abbate, Cheryl E. "Adventures in Moral Consistency: How to Develop an Abortion Ethic
through an Animal Rights Framework." Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 18.1 (2015):
145-164.
Boyle, Elizabeth H., Minzee Kim, and Wesley Longhofer. "Abortion liberalization in world
society, 1960–2009." American Journal of Sociology 121.3 (2015): 882-913.
Hua, Julietta, and Neel Ahuja. "Chimpanzee Sanctuary:" Surplus" Life and the Politics of
Transspecies Care." American Quarterly 65.3 (2013): 619-637.
Milligan, Tony. "The political turn in animal rights." Politics and Animals 1.1 (2015): 6-15.