WEBVTT

00:00:00.340 --> 00:00:05.660
Nothing quite kills the mood at a dinner party
like discussions of religion, politics, abortion,

00:00:05.660 --> 00:00:11.530
or veganism. So I thought it would be a bang-up
idea if in THIS video, we discuss all four!

00:00:11.530 --> 00:00:20.300
(I don’t have much of a social life…)

00:00:20.300 --> 00:00:25.600
Hi it's Emily from Bite Size Vegan and welcome
to another vegan nugget. Among the litany

00:00:25.600 --> 00:00:31.529
of objections to and arguments against veganism,
from your standard “plants have feelings”

00:00:31.529 --> 00:00:37.579
and “but lions eat meat,” lies an area
of discourse not so easily answered or discounted:

00:00:37.579 --> 00:00:39.850
the vegan stance on abortion.

00:00:39.850 --> 00:00:45.440
The topics of abortion and veganism do share
common ground. Both are decidedly polarizing

00:00:45.440 --> 00:00:50.710
issues quick to spark heated debate, have
passionately outspoken individuals on either

00:00:50.710 --> 00:00:57.260
side of the issue, often utilize similar tactics
within their outreach, education, and demonstrations,

00:00:57.260 --> 00:01:02.300
and involve a strong focus on the concepts
of sentience, individuality, pain perception

00:01:02.300 --> 00:01:03.930
and consciousness.

00:01:03.930 --> 00:01:09.279
Before we dive into this moralistic minefield,
let me first state that I will not be settling

00:01:09.279 --> 00:01:15.869
the abortion debate in this video. Sorry to
disappoint. What I will do is present the

00:01:15.869 --> 00:01:21.639
various arguments posed, along with perceived
logical inconsistencies, and scientific insights.

00:01:21.639 --> 00:01:26.859
I will also be using the common terms of pro-life
and pro-choice though I realize that either

00:01:26.859 --> 00:01:31.649
side has issues with these and have their
own terminology. This is merely to simplify

00:01:31.649 --> 00:01:36.319
the rhetoric in order to address the topic
at hand. You can find complete citations and

00:01:36.319 --> 00:01:40.560
a full bibliography for everything discussed
today on the blog post for this video linked

00:01:40.560 --> 00:01:41.069
below.

00:01:41.069 --> 00:01:47.259
I’d like to add that there is no vegan consensus
or official doctrine on abortion. Vegans,

00:01:47.259 --> 00:01:51.209
like the rest of the world’s population,
hold very different beliefs outside of their

00:01:51.209 --> 00:01:56.579
refusal to participate in the exploitation
of non-human animals. Views on abortion are

00:01:56.579 --> 00:02:02.549
often, but not always, heavily influenced
by ones religious or spiritual practice and

00:02:02.549 --> 00:02:06.069
morals, which vary as wildly amongst vegans
as non.

00:02:06.069 --> 00:02:11.680
In fact the issue of whether abortion is even
relevant to veganism itself is hotly debated.

00:02:11.680 --> 00:02:16.200
While the abortion issue is, at least from
my personal experience, most often thrown

00:02:16.200 --> 00:02:21.819
out as a diversion tactic intended to invalidate
veganism as a whole, there remain a few very

00:02:21.819 --> 00:02:24.950
real and valid intersections to explore.

00:02:24.950 --> 00:02:30.129
The disconnect most often perceived within
the veganism and abortion debate is the pro-choice

00:02:30.129 --> 00:02:35.939
vegan. Let’s start at the surface and the
most basic argument against pro-choice veganism:

00:02:35.939 --> 00:02:40.680
if vegans are against killing, then we have
to be against all killing. The fallacy in

00:02:40.680 --> 00:02:45.909
this position is what’s called a false dilemma,
posing a black and white reality when ample

00:02:45.909 --> 00:02:47.540
grey exists.

00:02:47.540 --> 00:02:52.560
Even most peace-loving pacifists would defend
themselves against an attacker and find no

00:02:52.560 --> 00:02:57.989
moral fault in the death of a perpetrator
during a true kill-or-be-killed situation.

00:02:57.989 --> 00:03:03.290
On the other side of the coin lies the most
basic defense for pro-choice veganism: abortion

00:03:03.290 --> 00:03:08.060
is dealing with a fetus in utero, of which
the sentience, consciousness and pain perception

00:03:08.060 --> 00:03:14.060
continues to be hotly debated, while veganism
deals with beings who are undeniably sentient,

00:03:14.060 --> 00:03:19.189
conscious, and pain-perceiving. However, as
we will soon see, this oversimplification

00:03:19.189 --> 00:03:24.939
fails to account for countless complex nuances,
though it is without doubt the most striking

00:03:24.939 --> 00:03:27.510
divergence, and one to take into account.

00:03:27.510 --> 00:03:32.590
When we start delving deeper into the abortion
debate, the lines begin to blur even further.

00:03:32.590 --> 00:03:37.689
The ability of a fetus to feel pain is a primary
argument of the pro-life camp. Seeing as how

00:03:37.689 --> 00:03:43.019
the prevention of pain and suffering is a
pillar of vegan ethics as well, it would appear

00:03:43.019 --> 00:03:47.879
that pro-choice vegans are left with quite
the conundrum. If, in fact, a fetus can feel

00:03:47.879 --> 00:03:54.069
pain, then the born vs. unborn moral distinction
fails. The key word being “if.”

00:03:54.069 --> 00:03:59.019
Here’s one of the places the abortion debate
lacks the clarity of veganism. Scientists

00:03:59.019 --> 00:04:05.010
still do not agree on fetal pain perception.
A 2005 meta-analysis concluded that, “fetal

00:04:05.010 --> 00:04:09.969
perception of pain is unlikely before the
third trimester.” A 2010 review by Britain’s

00:04:09.969 --> 00:04:15.409
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists,
stated that, “the fetus cannot experience

00:04:15.409 --> 00:04:21.220
pain in any sense prior [to 24 weeks].”
The earliest estimate comes from Dr. Kanwaljeet

00:04:21.220 --> 00:04:26.550
S. Anand, something of an outlier in the field
and oft-quoted by the pro-life cause. Anand

00:04:26.550 --> 00:04:32.410
proposes a window of 18-24 weeks, though he’s
emphasized that, “fetal pain does not have

00:04:32.410 --> 00:04:37.750
much relevance for abortion, since most abortions
are performed before the fetus is capable

00:04:37.750 --> 00:04:43.160
of experiencing pain,” with only 1.5% of
abortions occurring after 20 weeks in the

00:04:43.160 --> 00:04:46.349
United States.
One element clouding the issue is the difference

00:04:46.349 --> 00:04:51.860
between nociception and pain, something I
discuss more in-depth in my video “Can Fish

00:04:51.860 --> 00:04:57.639
Feel Pain.” In short, there can be reaction
to potentially painful or harmful stimuli

00:04:57.639 --> 00:05:03.490
without the experience of pain, and nociceptors,
which appear as early as 7 weeks, are not

00:05:03.490 --> 00:05:08.960
in and of themselves capable of relaying pain.
Of course, this uncertainty doesn’t exactly

00:05:08.960 --> 00:05:14.440
place pro-choice veganism in the clear. Many
vegans believe that the ability of non-human

00:05:14.440 --> 00:05:18.970
animals to feel pain shouldn’t have to be
scientifically proven to our satisfaction

00:05:18.970 --> 00:05:24.199
before we stop abusing them. Why conduct cruel
studies when they make it glaringly obvious

00:05:24.199 --> 00:05:30.160
with crying out, trying to escape, flinching,
struggling, and showing indicators of psychological

00:05:30.160 --> 00:05:34.849
stress? We should operate on the assumption
that they can feel pain. So why then, does

00:05:34.849 --> 00:05:40.550
this courtesy not extend to a human fetus?
If pain alone were the issue, vegans would

00:05:40.550 --> 00:05:45.580
support the killing of unconscious animals
and pro-lifers wouldn’t protest the abortion

00:05:45.580 --> 00:05:50.660
of fetuses prior to the development of pain
perception. But both issues have additional

00:05:50.660 --> 00:05:55.949
layers, such as conscious awareness or sentience,
and future life interests.

00:05:55.949 --> 00:06:00.629
Vegans see the sentience of non-human animals,
meaning their ability to feel, perceive and

00:06:00.629 --> 00:06:07.400
experience life subjectively, as a solid grounds
for their protection. Often interchanged with

00:06:07.400 --> 00:06:12.060
“consciousness,” sentience in non-human
animals is widely accepted among scientists,

00:06:12.060 --> 00:06:16.940
with over 2,500 studies and the release of
an international Declaration of Consciousness

00:06:16.940 --> 00:06:18.849
in 2012.

00:06:18.849 --> 00:06:23.720
Similar to the variances in pain-perception
development, the certainty of sentience is

00:06:23.720 --> 00:06:28.720
lacking within the abortion debate. Still,
as vegan activist Gary Yourofsky has stated,

00:06:28.720 --> 00:06:32.960
“sentience [isn’t] the only factor when
deciding how we should treat other beings.

00:06:32.960 --> 00:06:38.039
(Even though trees, mountains, air and water
are insentient life forces, I think they have

00:06:38.039 --> 00:06:41.090
a right NOT to be exploited and polluted and
destroyed.)”

00:06:41.090 --> 00:06:45.750
Where the argument against pro-choice veganism
really gains some ground is the discussion

00:06:45.750 --> 00:06:52.569
of life potential. Vegans, including myself,
often argue that even if we could somehow,

00:06:52.569 --> 00:06:59.479
someway actually kill a non-human animal without
any pain or awareness, it would still be unethical

00:06:59.479 --> 00:07:04.319
as we could be choosing to end their life
prematurely. We do not see such an action

00:07:04.319 --> 00:07:10.659
as our choice, as personal choice is no longer
personal when it involves the welfare of another.

00:07:10.659 --> 00:07:16.229
How, then, can a vegan possibly support the
choice to abort the potential life of a human?

00:07:16.229 --> 00:07:21.000
The argument that the fetus is not aware of
a future won’t stand unless vegans also

00:07:21.000 --> 00:07:26.629
condone the killing of animals who are unaware
or unconscious at the time of death. So have

00:07:26.629 --> 00:07:32.810
we circled back to the born vs. unborn divide?
Again this becomes hazy with the uncertainty

00:07:32.810 --> 00:07:34.970
of pain and sentience.

00:07:34.970 --> 00:07:40.689
There exists an element of self-defense congruent
with vegan ideals that can be applied to abortion

00:07:40.689 --> 00:07:45.689
in the cases of rape and incest or when the
life of the mother is at stake. But what about

00:07:45.689 --> 00:07:50.849
abortion out of inconvenience or financial
strain? Or sex-selective abortions wherein

00:07:50.849 --> 00:07:56.340
female fetuses are aborted due to male cultural
preference, a practice most often associated

00:07:56.340 --> 00:08:01.669
with China and India, but prevalent in many
other countries where males increasingly outnumber

00:08:01.669 --> 00:08:07.379
females. Is choosing to stop the potential
life of a fetus for what could be termed one’s

00:08:07.379 --> 00:08:12.810
own comfort a parallel to meat eaters ending
the lives of non-human animals for their own

00:08:12.810 --> 00:08:14.319
comfort?

00:08:14.319 --> 00:08:20.659
Even more direct parallels exist. In my video
“Is Lab Meat Vegan,” I discussed the harvesting

00:08:20.659 --> 00:08:26.810
methods for bovine fetal serum, a growth medium
used within a wide range of laboratory experiments,

00:08:26.810 --> 00:08:31.539
along with fetal pig and fetal sheep serums.
Bovine fetal serum is obtained by piercing

00:08:31.539 --> 00:08:36.660
and draining the beating heart of fetal calves
who’ve been cut from their mothers’ wombs

00:08:36.660 --> 00:08:37.920
in slaughterhouses.

00:08:37.920 --> 00:08:42.610
This practice was understandably met with
horror and disgust from vegan viewers and

00:08:42.610 --> 00:08:48.620
even non-vegans. Were any of these vegans
pro-choice, would this reaction be an indication

00:08:48.620 --> 00:08:54.390
of dissonance or hypocrisy? The study I cited
went on in length about the potential pain-perception

00:08:54.390 --> 00:09:00.660
of the bovine fetuses and referenced a general
acceptance of 24 weeks for human fetus pain

00:09:00.660 --> 00:09:05.670
perception, and presented a figure of roughly
12 weeks, or 3 months for cows, who are more

00:09:05.670 --> 00:09:08.400
fully developed at birth than humans.

00:09:08.400 --> 00:09:13.940
Again the variances in situation may create
a buffer for the pro-choice vegan given that

00:09:13.940 --> 00:09:20.460
bovine fetuses must be at least 3 months old
to provide enough serum and are often 6 months

00:09:20.460 --> 00:09:25.260
or older when put through this procedure without
any anesthesia, well beyond the point of pain

00:09:25.260 --> 00:09:29.960
perception. Additionally, it’s readily evident
that a human mother procuring an abortion

00:09:29.960 --> 00:09:35.600
differs dramatically from cutting a living
fetus from the body of a mother cow slaughtered

00:09:35.600 --> 00:09:39.440
against her will in order to drain the heart
for profit.

00:09:39.440 --> 00:09:44.160
I would like to bring up another wrinkle.
While vegans believe in the rights of non-human

00:09:44.160 --> 00:09:48.760
animals, the majority, from what I have found,
which is by no means conclusive, do seem to

00:09:48.760 --> 00:09:54.090
support the spaying and neutering of companion
animals. While this is most certainly a violation

00:09:54.090 --> 00:09:59.290
of their rights, it is not, as Gary Yourofsky
has written, a cruel practice when performed

00:09:59.290 --> 00:10:04.980
properly. He, along with many activists, argues
that since the domestication of dogs and cats

00:10:04.980 --> 00:10:09.870
will not be undone anytime soon, spaying and
neutering is a better alternative than the

00:10:09.870 --> 00:10:15.650
current cruel and needless deaths of millions
of abandoned, unwanted companion animals due

00:10:15.650 --> 00:10:17.090
to overbreeding.

00:10:17.090 --> 00:10:21.580
Once again the parallel is by no means ideal,
as our animal companions have no ability to

00:10:21.580 --> 00:10:26.870
make this choice for themselves, and spaying
and neutering prevents a pregnancy while abortion

00:10:26.870 --> 00:10:32.960
ends one. I present this simply as an example
of vegans being faced with an ethical ambiguity

00:10:32.960 --> 00:10:36.660
and supporting the restriction of animals’
reproductive rights.

00:10:36.660 --> 00:10:42.690
At the more misanthropic end of the spectrum,
since humanity continues to murder trillions

00:10:42.690 --> 00:10:48.770
of innocent beings every year, decimate the
planet, and grow in population and demand

00:10:48.770 --> 00:10:53.830
for meat, could it be argued that stemming
this proliferation at its root would actually

00:10:53.830 --> 00:10:57.080
be perfectly inline with vegan principles?

00:10:57.080 --> 00:11:02.460
Any attempt to present a singular vegan view
on abortion negates the diversity and variance

00:11:02.460 --> 00:11:09.150
of vegans themselves. Many vegans reject the
aforementioned “animals vs. humans” dichotomy,

00:11:09.150 --> 00:11:15.460
seeing human and animal rights as inextricable
– to be protected and fought for concurrently.

00:11:15.460 --> 00:11:19.120
Something I personally find fascinating in
this whole debate is the focus on whether

00:11:19.120 --> 00:11:24.420
vegans can be pro-choice. With all of the
uncertainties inherent in fetal pain-perception

00:11:24.420 --> 00:11:29.640
and sentience and the absolute certainties
of non-human animal c pain-perception and

00:11:29.640 --> 00:11:35.390
sentience it’s interesting that the more
concrete question usually remains unasked:

00:11:35.390 --> 00:11:38.940
can someone non-vegans be pro-life?

00:11:38.940 --> 00:11:43.910
As I said in the opener, I’m not going to
settle the abortion debate, or even the veganism

00:11:43.910 --> 00:11:48.670
and abortion debate. Even with my attempts
at simplifications, it’s evident how complex

00:11:48.670 --> 00:11:50.910
this dialogue can easily become.

00:11:50.910 --> 00:11:56.260
I’d love to hear your thoughts on the debate
in the comments below. It’s gonna be fun

00:11:56.260 --> 00:12:00.670
down there. If you’d like to help support
Bite Size Vegan so I can keep putting in these

00:12:00.670 --> 00:12:05.260
long hours to bring you this educational resource,
please check out the support links in the

00:12:05.260 --> 00:12:09.140
video description below where you can give
a one-time donation or receive perks and rewards

00:12:09.140 --> 00:12:13.850
by joining the Nugget Army on Patreon. I’d
like to give a special thanks my $50 and above

00:12:13.850 --> 00:12:19.130
patrons and my whole Patreon family for making
this and all of my videos possible.

00:12:19.130 --> 00:12:22.830
If you enjoyed this video, please give it
a thumbs-up and share it around to spark debate.

00:12:22.830 --> 00:12:27.200
If you’re new, I’d love to have you as
a subscriber. I put out fresh vegan content

00:12:27.200 --> 00:12:32.250
every Monday, Wednesday, and some Fridays.
Now go live vegan, be sure to show this video

00:12:32.250 --> 00:12:55.920
at your next dinner party, and I’ll see
you soon.