Earth to Ryan: ALL Life is Life

I was going to lay off Paul Ryan for a while, until I read his statement in an interview with a Pennsylvania news station: “I stand by my pro-life record in Congress. It’s something I’m proud of.” I just find it anomalous that a diehard bowhunter claims to be “pro-life.” Either he’s lying about championing life, or he doesn’t understand that humans aren’t the only animals imbued with it.

Since his congressional record leaves no doubt about his militantly “pro-life,” right-wing, anti-abortion stance (he opposes the procedure even in cases of rape or incest), it must be that he considers only human life worthy of the L-word. Apparently all others don’t measure up to the status of having life, in his opinion. It may come as a shock to someone so used to depersonalizing and objectifying certain beings while pursuing their favorite lethal hobby, but whether human or non-human, all life is life.

When I think of the term “pro-life,” I think of pro-wildlife (and therefore, anti-hunting); pro-animal life (humans being animals, they’re included here); pro-animate life; pro-the-living. But I fail to see how a human ovum fertilized through an act of incest or violence rates higher than a fully aware, fully functioning adult deer, elk or turkey.

Text and Wildlife Photography ©Jim Robertson


11 thoughts on “Earth to Ryan: ALL Life is Life

  1. A clump of a few cells means more to Ryan, so long as they are human cells, than a fully living creature with far more interest in living than any cell clump could have. He is not pro-life, and I doubt he’s really pro human life. He’s opposed to women being in control of their bodies.

  2. It is amazing how many hunters call themselves “pro life” and Christian. I would say the irony is lost on them … except I rather doubt those who live this dichotomy, understand the constructs of irony.

  3. The abortion issue coexists nicely with the animal rights philosophy unless one is vague – and both sides are guilty of vagueness. The animal rights philosophy declares that all animals have the basic right to live. That’s simple enough until there are “rights conflicts”.

    An excellent essay on the topic is here:

    Many hunters will agree that animals have rights – until it conflicts with their right (as a superior being) to entertainment.

    A chef may be more sentient than the lobster he boils – but an animal rights advocate asks about the effect of the action on each individual – the chef and the lobster. It is never enough, in a rights conflict such as abortion, to state who has rights when under different circumstances they both should have rights.

    A woman is more sentient then a fetus – Carl Sagan’s article describes the sentience of a fetus well – – but to kill a fetus without discussing the sentience of the fetus or the effect on the woman – is just as morally bankrupt as any other vague emotional decision.

    • Thanks for the links, Ann. I know of a lot of good AR folks, animal advocates and animal shelters are who are willing to “fix” a female cat or dog that is pregnant, even if it means terminating the potential births, in the interest of minumizing overall animal suffering. As for humans, I’d have to agree with Carl Sagan.

  4. Pingback: No Offense, but You’re an Animal | Exposing the Big Game

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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