Jesurgislac’s Journal

September 9, 2010

Do pro-lifers really think of women as animals?

The pro-life argument is, in essence, a refusal to see women as human – or to perceive women at all.

It’s easy to see this in terms of slavery. The pro-life movement is the heir of the aggressive, racist-eugenic fascism before WWII*: which in turn inherited so many of its beliefs from the calm white-centric belief that inferior people shall be slaves to their superiors. Women in this scenario are the slaves of men: women have no right to decide for themselves how many children to have, and when. The forms of contraception which the pro-life movement is most likely to passionately campaign against are the contraceptive pill, its younger sister emergency contraception, and the IUD: contraception which is under the control of the women who use it, and which a man is not likely to be able to sabotage and may not even be aware the woman who is “his” is using. Emergency contraception even enables a rape victim to take control of her body and say no, at the least you will not make me pregnant: naturally, pro-lifers oppose emergency contraception being provided automatically to rape victims as soon as they seek medical treatment.

*The aggression in pro-life attacks on Margaret Sanger speaks of an enmity far older than the modern pro-life movement: Sanger was a believer that even the poorest women should be allowed to “improve the breed” (yes, she was a eugenicist, as were the pro-lifers who opposed her then) by her passionate pro-choice support of even the poorest woman’s right to decide how many children to have, rather than – as in her day – being forced by denial of contraception and denial of the right to refuse their husbands, to have as many children as they could until they died of it. Margaret Sanger’s eugenics was a form profoundly opposed to the fascism inherent in the white pro-lifers who opposed her: who believed white women owed it to “the breed” to be forced to have as many children as they could, and let two-thirds of them die. The strongest would survive, these pro-lifers felt: why give women the right to decide?

Slaves are not allowed to decide when they will be bred, or how many children they will have: pro-lifers want to roll back the human rights movement to the days when a man could literally own the women he bred, and the children he produced.

But even a slave may be cared for by her owner, at least to the degree of concern that she should be maintained as a healthy breeder: for some pro-lifers, who openly maintain that when a pregnancy goes wrong, the woman should be forced to continue the pregnancy though she dies of it, and regardless of what damage the pregnancy does to her. This is thinking of a woman as an incubator – a cheap, easily replaceable machine, used to produce babies, use till it breaks.

But there is still another sticky undercurrent to the pro-life movement: the belief that women are morally equivalent to farm animals.

A few weeks ago a New Zealand pro-life blogger, Brendan Malone, published an outraged post in which he complained that a Green politician, who’s pro-choice, had recently

issued an official press release which passionately attacked the NZ dairy industry for inducing the premature birth of unborn cows, a practice which often results in the death of the calf.
Yes, you did read that right; unborn cows, and look at the language used by Kedgley when talking about this issue, and the sort of action she wants the government to take against it…

Brendan describes this as “unbelievably hypocritical”, because the same politician is pro-choice.

Now, if you’re pro-choice, you believe that the pregnant woman is the person who has the best right to decide whether to terminate or continue her pregnancy: it’s a basic human rights issue, a basic healthcare issue.

What does this have to do with humane farming practices?

Dairy farming is an inhumane business. Male calves are of no value to a dairy farmer: they’re sold young for veal. Female calves are taken from their mothers young, reared and fed indifferently by humans, so that their mothers can be milked for food for our use: milk, cream, butter, cheese. Cows are bred to produce far more milk than their calves could use, so much milk that if they aren’t milked twice a day they suffer terrible pain and eventually die. Dairy farming is emblematic of how we as humans treat animals as if we have the absolute right to use them at our will to provide for our needs, regardless of how this twists and distorts their lives.

What does this have to do with a woman’s right to choose? If you are pro-life, you believe that women can be bred against their will – but surely even a pro-lifer would see some distinction between a human woman, even one deprived of her basic human rights, and a dairy cow? Women do not, even in the most extreme pro-life fantasies, lead lives in any way resembling a dairy cow’s.

But apparently Brendan Malone, and multiple regular pro-life commenters who follow his blog, really see no difference at all between a pregnant woman and a dairy cow. To them, arguing that the farmer of dairy cows ought not to be allowed to induce the cow early to get the milk production started, because this is an additional layer of cruelty on top of the regular day to day use of a dairy cow’s life, is “hypocritical”, because this same politician who opposes a farmer’s mistreatment of cows, opposes pro-life mistreatment of women: she believes that women ought to allowed to decide for themselves about their pregnancies. But to these pro-lifers, and I wish I was joking, women are no more than cows.

Indeed, in a later thread on the same blog, a pro-lifer Mikestruth was insistently arguing a Dolcett-like belief that being vegetarian and being pro-choice was somehow “inconsistent”: as if believing women have the right to choose was somehow inconsistent with not eating meat. (Dolcett, if you didn’t know and I often wish I didn’t, is the eroticisation of cannibalism – specifically, men consuming women as meat. Sorry: my tolerance for human perversity lapses at that point, as it has firmly lapsed with Mikestruth’s belief that women are food animals and arguing for human rights for women is weird if you’re a vegetarian.)


  1. This is a sticky subject with so many people being either pro or con.I think you raised some interesting questions and the article was well written and thought out.Keep up the good work.Thanks for posting

    Comment by fallenangel39 — September 9, 2010 @ 9:11 pm | Reply

  2. ~ the pendulum is swinging back to allowing woman to make choices that fit with their own feminine instincts-choices that allow them to have their Disabled baby in a supportive loving society that will accept them and their lovely baby. ~

    I couldn’t comment on the other blog, but this comment by valuesall made me go Hrrrgh? When have women ever been denied the choice to HAVE their baby? And yet pro-lifers want to deny women the choice NOT to have a baby.

    I’ve been lurking on your blog and following you around other places for awhile. Your tenaciousness and patience astound me. Thank you for keeping up the fight.

    Comment by Wahoo — September 11, 2010 @ 3:24 am | Reply

  3. I’m as pro-choice as they come (in fact, having an abortion made me even more pro-choice), but I don’t think it’s a good idea, or even accurate, really, to make a serious case for comparing the way that humans breed animals and used to forcibly breed slaves, with the views of those opposed to abortion. Most pro-lifers simply believe that the right of the fetus to grow, uninterrupted, into a full human being is worth a woman’s 9 months of pregnancy. Of course, the degree of inconvenience that a pregnancy may cause a woman will sometimes change the strictness of the prolifers’ beliefs, but ultimately, most are just not going to be convinced that a woman’s desire to not only not have a child, but also not remain pregnant, will ever trump the right for the fetus to remain alive.

    I’m just trying to say, as much as their collective viewpoints feel, and are, violating and dehumanizing, it’s not as if the entire group and all of its members literally desires to force women to breed.

    Comment by April — October 20, 2010 @ 3:05 am | Reply

    • Most pro-lifers simply believe that the right of the fetus to grow, uninterrupted, into a full human being is worth a woman’s 9 months of pregnancy.

      By definition, all pro-lifers believe that women once pregnant should be forced through pregnancy against the woman’s will.

      Someone who thinks that the woman gets to decide is pro-choice, regardless of their views on abortion. It’s not really relevant what a person thinks about abortion, so long as they acknowledge a woman’s right to have one.

      This post was specifically inspired by a number of particularly crude pro-lifers arguing that it’s “Hypocritical” of politician who argues that it’s wrong for farmers to terminate the pregnancies of dairy cows early merely for the farmer’s commercial convenience, to also support a woman’s right to choose abortion. Only someone who thought of women as literally equivalent to cows, incapable of choice and farmed like animals, could think this hypocritical.

      I’m just trying to say, as much as their collective viewpoints feel, and are, violating and dehumanizing, it’s not as if the entire group and all of its members literally desires to force women to breed.

      Well, yeah. Pretty much by definition: if you believe that women shouldn’t be forced to breed, if you support the right of every pregnant woman to make her own decision about abortion, you’re not pro-life at all: you’re pro-choice.

      Comment by jesurgislac — October 20, 2010 @ 8:15 am | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at

%d bloggers like this: