In my ex-vegan interview with Stella today, she compares vegan ideology to pro-life ideology:

If you truly believe that killing animals (or even “exploiting” animals for their eggs, say) is categorically wrong, then you must speak or act against it. A parallel would be the way in which religious anti-abortion activists believe that a human zygote or fetus, at any stage, is morally a human being and it is therefore wrong to injure, hurt, or kill said zygote or fetus (a belief very few vegans seem to share, interestingly).  Since they believe all forms of abortion are ethically equivalent to murder, they must speak and act against it.

This reminded me of my ex-vegan interview with Cory Kilduff. Cory said he quit doing vegan activism when he recognized how similar his anti-fur protest was to an anti-abortion protest across the street.

Vegans are stereotypically civil libertarians who support choice when it involves women and their fetuses, yet vegan arguments perfectly parallel anti-abortion ones when you substitute “animal” for “fetus.”

As Cory’s protest comparison emphasizes, both anti-meat and anti-abortion protesters rely on bloody, gruesome imagery to turn stomachs and change minds. These plays upon emotion are supposedly fair tactics because they are just images from real life. If you can’t stand the sight of a decapitated cow/aborted late-term fetus, then how do you justify eating meat/having an abortion?

To pro-lifers, abortion is never necessary because there are alternatives, like putting the child up for adoption. To vegans, animal products are never necessary because there are alternatives… like wheat gluten.

Pro-life activists give a voice to the voiceless fetuses, who have a right to life and feel pain. Animal activists give a voice to the voiceless animals, who have a right to life and feel pain.

Some pro-lifers cheer the death of abortion doctors. Some vegans cheer the death of hunters or famous meat advocates like Dr. Atkins.

Pro-lifers contemptuously look down on women who who have abortions, calling them immoral for killing out of mere “convenience.” Vegans contemptuously look down on meat eaters, calling them immoral for killing to satisfy lowly “taste preferences.”

Pro-lifers argue that a fetus is not the mother’s property, that it has inherent worth and is an end unto itself. Vegans argue that animals are nobody’s property, that they have inherent worth and are ends unto themselves.

To pro-lifers, the only excuse for aborting a fetus is if the mother’s life is at stake. To vegans, the only excuse for killing an animal is in self-defense or to avoid immediate starvation.

To pro-lifers, being human automatically confers inviolable rights, no matter the stage of development. To vegans, sentience automatically confers inviolable rights, no matter the species.

Some pro-lifers compare abortion to the holocaust. Some vegans compare factory farming to the holocaust.

The “My body, my choice” counterpoint to pro-life arguments is the same as the omnivorous retort to veganism — “My body, my menu choices.” The pro-life/vegan answer to both of these arguments is the same: screw your body, what about the other creature’s body that you’re killing?

“Our bodies are more important,” say abortion and meat pro-choicers. But vegans and pro-lifers disagree. The moral status of these respective beings (non-human animals, fetuses) is equal to that of humans and so we should treat them as such. You wouldn’t abort your best friend or eat your mother, would you? Then you better not abort that innocent fetus/eat that innocent cow.