Austin City Council Outlaws Animal Abortion While Unanimously Voting for Human Abortion
This really should be a satirical piece in the Babylon Bee, unfortunately this news story is 100% real.
2019 Ordinance Prohibited Animal Abortion
In 2019, the Austin city council passed a city ordinance that prohibited killing unborn puppies and kittens at shelters until local rescue organizations had a chance to find adoptive parents for the puppies.
As reported by KXAN, NBC’s local affiliate, local pro-pet-abortion vet, Dr. Paige Nilson, argued before the city council, that the pro-life pet provision in the city code contributes to pet overpopulation at the shelters and forces them to take up limited resources in caring for the pregnant dogs and cats.
On the other hand, Dr. Ellen Jefferson a pro-life-pet vet who runs animal rescue organization APA! told the local NBC affiliate that there is no need to abort the puppies and kittens since they find adoptive owners for 100% of the pets that they take in, since pet owners almost always prefer to adopt newborn cats and dogs.
2022 Ordinance Created Sanctuary for Abortion
In a horrific twist of abortion irony, the Austin City Council had voted unanimously just over a month ago, at their July 21st regular meeting, to declare the city a “sanctuary city” for the abortion of human babies. The local resolution defunds and de-prioritizes local law enforcement’s ability to enforce Texas state laws that protect the right to life of children in the womb.
The number of families that struggle with infertility is roughly equal to the number of abortions in the United States. This means that if the law protected children from being killed before birth, human adoption agencies, just like the pet adoption agencies, would be able to find loving families for all of the supposedly “unwanted” babies.
The sickening irony of the Austin City council is that it is willing to spend time and money to care for unborn puppies and kittens, while simultaneously dehumanizing and denying the personhood of the preborn human being.
Personhood for “Nature” But Not for Preborn Humans
The personhood movement is defined by the demand that all human beings enjoy the equal protection of their basic human rights.
This humanitarian demand runs head on into the selfish desire of men and women to avoid the responsibilities of parenthood after having engaged in sexual intercourse. The cases of involuntary pregnancy (rape and incest) are of course merely exploited to justify the dehumanization of the preborn by anti-life forces, much in the same way a case of a black or Jewish rapist would have been used by racists to demand the adoption of racist policies.
In the left’s twisted world, which is increasingly THE world, nature is given special protection, humans are seen as the problem, and abortion is the final solution.
Ape Personhood vs. Human Personhood
The trend in the secularized world, which includes most of the world’s elites, is to increasingly recognize personhood rights in nature, while simultaneously denying them to preborn human beings. Recently, several nations have granted personhood status to apes. In New Zealand, rivers have been recognized as possessing the rights of personhood. In Chile, the communist constitution that was recently defeated overwhelmingly at a referendum demanded personhood for the environment in order to fight climate change. In the United States, the eggs of endangered species such as bald eagles are protected by federal law.
On the other hand, pro-lifers around the world, while desiring the good stewardship of the environment, recognize the intrinsic value of the human being, which should never be sacrificed for utilitarian ends.
Sanctuary for Abortion or Sanctuary for Life?
Just as there are cities declaring themselves to be sanctuaries for abortion, dozens of cities have declared themselves to be sanctuaries for the unborn or safe city for life. Still, there are few examples as stark as Austin, Texas that contrast the very same local legislators unanimously choosing to dehumanize the preborn human being by supporting their abortion while simultaneously caring for the right to life of unborn animals by prohibiting aborting them.
