Isn’t it ironic that the very people who would oppose the pro-life, Personhood Bill, which provides “that human life shall be deemed to begin with fertilization,” are the same ones who would advocate for the “personhood” rights of animals?

I was reminded of this today while reading a column in the Daily Mail that announced that animal rights lawyer Steve Wise “will argue chimpanzees should have personhood rights in front of Manhattan appellate division of New York’s Supreme Court.”

According to Wise, “A ‘person’ is the law’s way of saying that entity has the capacity for rights. A ‘thing,’ which chimpanzees are now, don’t have capacity for any kind of rights. To treat them as things destroys them.”

Now, I don’t know anything about Wise or the advocacy group he founded (it’s called the Nonhuman Rights Project), but if my past experience is correct here, Wise would not likely be a supporter of the Republican-sponsored Personhood Bill, since, as a general rule, the more staunchly someone supports animal rights, the more likely they are to be pro-abortion.

Compassion for Furry Creatures

How can this be? And how is it that people who are so moved to compassion when it comes to our furry friends can be so hard-hearted when it comes to their tiny, precious, still-in-the-womb, fellow-humans? And why is this often the case with radical environmentalists as well? Why are tree-huggers so often baby-aborters? (In the words of Kirk Walden’s October 14, 2016, op-ed piece on LifeSite News, “Radical Environmentalists: Save the Earth, Abort Babies.”)

Continue reading at Stream