Vegetarianism Argumentative Essay On Abortion

This essay is a joint winner in the Undergraduate Category of the Oxford Uehiro Prize in Practical Ethics

Written by University of Oxford student, Thomas Sittler

“How should vegetarians actually live? A reply to Xavier Cohen.”

Ethical vegetarians abstain from eating animal flesh because they care about the harm done to farmed animals. More precisely, they believe that farmed animals have lives so bad they are not worth living, so that it is better for them not to come into existence. Vegetarians reduce the demand for meat, so that farmers will breed fewer animals, preventing the existence of additional animals. If ethical vegetarians believed animals have lives that are unpleasant but still better than non-existence, they would focus on reducing harm to these animals without reducing their numbers, for instance by supporting humane slaughter or buying meat from free-range cows.

I will argue that if vegetarians were to apply this principle consistently, wild animal suffering would dominate their concerns, and may lead them to be stringent anti-environmentalists.

If animals like free-range cows have lives that are not worth living, almost all wild animals could plausibly be thought to also have lives that are worse than non-existence. Nature is often romanticised as a well-balanced idyll, so this may seem counter-intuitive. But extreme forms of suffering like starvation, dehydration, or being eaten alive by a predator are much more common in wild animals than farm animals. Crocodiles and hyenas disembowel their prey before killing them[1]. In birds, diseases like avian salmonellosis produce excruciating symptoms in the final days of life, such as depression, shivering, loss of appetite, and just before death, blindness, incoordination, staggering, tremor and convulsions.[2] While a farmed animal like a free-range cow has to endure some confinement and a premature and potentially painful death (stunning sometimes fails), a wild animal may suffer comparable experiences, such as surviving a cold winter or having to fear predators, while additionally undergoing the aforementioned extreme suffering[3]. Wild animals do experience significant pleasure, for instance when they eat, play or have sex, or engage in other normal physical activity. One reason to suspect that this pleasure is outweighed by suffering is that most species use the reproductive strategy of r-selection, which means that the overwhelming majority of their offspring starve or are eaten shortly after birth and only very few reach reproductive age.[4],[5]For instance, ‘in her lifetime a lioness might have 20 cubs; a pigeon, 150 chicks; a mouse, 1000 kits’,[6] the vast majority of which will die before they could have had many pleasurable experiences. Overall, it seems plausible that wild animals have worse lives than, say, free-range cows. If vegetarians think the latter are better off not existing, they must believe the same thing about wild animals.

A second important empirical fact is that wild animals far outnumber farmed animals. Using figures from the FAO, Tomasik estimates that the global livestock population is 24 billion (including 17 billion chicken)[7]. I restrict my count of wild animals to those at least as complex as chicken or small fish, which vegetarians clearly believe do have moral weight. Using studies of animal density in different biomes, Tomasik estimates conservatively that there are at least 6*1010 land birds, 1011 land mammals, and 1013 fish. Animals in each of these categories alone are several times more numerous than livestock.

If wild animals’ well-being is negative and the above numbers are remotely correct, the scale of wild animal suffering is vast. As Richard Dawkins writes, ‘During the minute it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive; others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear; others are being slowly devoured from within by rasping parasites; thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst and disease.’[8] If they accept the premises so far, consistent vegetarians should focus on preventing the existence of as many wild animals as possible, since even a small reduction in the global number of wild animals would outweigh the impact of ending all livestock production. For example, they could reduce animal populations by sterilising them, or by destroying highly dense animal habitats such as rainforests. This would place them directly at odds with environmentalists who try to preserve nature from human intervention. It may even be the case that vegetarians should react to this argument by eating more meat, since feeding the livestock requires more surface area for agriculture, and fields contain far fewer wild animals per square kilometre than other biomes such as forests.

An intuitive response to wild animal suffering can be that cycles of predation and starvation are natural, and therefore they must be neutral morally. But what is natural is not necessarily what is good, for instance, humans will routinely use technology to remove diseases which are natural.

It is important to emphasize that the claim ‘wild animal suffering is bad’ does not imply a guilt claim of the form ‘predators are morally guilty’. A lion’s instinct is indeed natural and does not deserve our moral condemnation. However, we can avoid much confusion if we remember to keep separate the concepts of guilt of an agent and wrongness of an action. It is perfectly possible to claim that X is harmful and should be prevented while also holding that the direct cause of X is not a moral agent. The fact that we are so used to thinking about cases of human behaviour, where guilt and wrongness are largely aligned, may partly explain why arguments about wild animal suffering seem counter-intuitive.

Underlying some of these principled arguments is the intuition that harmful acts, like killing livestock, are worse than harmful omissions, like failing to avert wild animal suffering. I cannot begin to give a full treatment to the act/omission debate here, but one thought experiment suggests harmful omissions matter at least somewhat. Imagine you see a fire spreading in a forest and, while walking away from the fire, you see an injured fawn: a broken leg prevents her from fleeing. You carry a rifle and could instantly kill the fawn at no cost to yourself, preventing her from the extreme suffering of being burned alive. In this situation, for vegetarians who care about harm to animals, it is clear that it would be immoral to omit to act and allow wild animal suffering to happen. So the general principle ‘allowing wild animals to suffer is morally neutral’ cannot hold.

A second set of counter-arguments are empirical: they concede that consistent vegetarians are morally obliged to reduce wild animal suffering, but attack various empirical claims made above.

It may be objected that we cannot reduce the number of animals by sterilising them, because as soon as fewer animals are born, more resources (like food and territory) become available, which increases the evolutionary payoff of producing more animals. If we sterilise some deer, there will at first be fewer fawns, so there will be more nuts and berries available, which allows other deer (or other species) to have more offspring, until we are back to the original equilibrium. The existence of such evolutionary pressures towards an equilibrium population seems plausible, but it remains an unsolved empirical question. It may be the case that the population takes several years to reach its equilibrium again, in which case much animal suffering would be averted in the meantime. Regardless, this is only an objection against one particular method for reducing wild animal numbers, and it only tells us that sterilisation would be ineffective, not harmful. If we reject sterilisation on these grounds, habitat destruction, for instance, evidently does reduce animal numbers for the long run.

A frequent objection against intervening in nature is that we are uncertain about the consequences: for instance, culling predators might cause an ecological catastrophe. While our uncertainty is a good reason to do more research in order to reduce it, it is not in principle an argument for inaction. If we are so uncertain, inaction towards predation could also be causing vastly more suffering than we currently estimate. In order to make sure our aversion to intervene is not caused by status quo bias, we can use the reversal test,[9] an elegant instance of which is provided by the reintroduction of wolves in Scotland, where they had been hunted to extinction in the 1700s.[10] If we are more worried about the uncertain effects of reintroducing wolves than we are about the uncertainty of inaction towards wolf predation, this may be due to status quo bias.

Possibly the strongest counter-argument is that we are extremely uncertain about whether wild animals’ lives are worth living. How much pain or pleasure animals feel in response to certain stimuli is dependent on facts about their neurology which is not well understood. While we may make some reasonable extrapolation from our human experience (being eaten alive is very painful), animal subjective experience may differ significantly. While animals might experience hedonic adaptation[11] to their circumstances, encounters with predators produce lasting psychological damage similar to post-traumatic stress disorder in humans.[12] There is some evidence that domesticated animals are less stressed,[13] but measures of stress hormones may not coincide with animals’ revealed preferences[14]. Clearly, I do not pretend to have solved this difficult empirical question. However I note that these considerations should also make us uncertain about the subjective well-being of farmed animals; and I have already offered reasons why wild animals plausibly have worse lives than free-range animals.

Even if vegetarians still reject this argument, and believe that wild animals’ lives are better than the lives of farm animals, to the extent that they are worth living, this does not imply they should do nothing. They should not reduce animal numbers, but they should still reduce the suffering of existing animals. Because there are so many animals and the suffering they undergo can be so extreme, this consideration would likely still dominate concern about farmed animals. One could vaccinate animals against diseases: rabies has already been eliminated from foxes for human benefit[15]. After elephants’ teeth wear out, they are no longer able to chew food and eventually collapse from hunger, after which they may be eaten alive by scavengers and predators. Fitting elephants with artificial dentures, which has already been done on captive animals, would significantly increase their healthspan[16]. Or one could cull predator populations by allowing more of them to be hunted.

A possible concern with this type of intervention may be that any advantage given to a particular individual by reducing their suffering would increase the suffering of others. For instance, if elephants can eat for longer, more other herbivores will starve; or if we kill predators, their prey will proliferate and their competitors will starve. If we think that ecosystems lie on such a razor-sharp evolutionary equilibrium where all animals are strongly competing for every piece of resource, this objection is plausible. But crucially, if we accept this, then it is becomes plausible that wild animals actually do have lives that are not worth living: if evolution produces so many animals that each can just barely survive, it is likely that they endure much suffering and little pleasure. So it seems like we must either accept that some interventions can reduce extreme wild animal suffering, or concede that animals’ lives are plausibly not worth living.

Some may choose to treat this outlandish conclusion as a reductio against vegetarianism (either against the idea that farm animals matter morally or against the belief that we should prevent them from coming into existence). Perhaps vegetarians who still reject the conclusion should increase their confidence that buying free-range meat is a good thing. For those who accept it, the question of how most effectively to reduce wild animal suffering is left open. As I have repeatedly emphasised, we are still very ignorant about many relevant empirical questions, so immediate large-scale intervention will not be very effective. In addition, intervention may have significant backlash effects and reduce sympathy for the anti-speciesist message. The best immediate action is probably to produce more research on wild animal suffering, in order to make future action more likely to be effective.



[1] Dawrst, Alan. “The predominance of wild-animal suffering over happiness: An open problem.” Essays on Reducing Suffering (2009): 255-85.

[2] Michigan Department of Natural Resources. “Salmonellosis.” Quoted in Tomasik, “The Importance of Wild Animal Suffering”

[3] Tomasik, Brian. “Intention-Based Moral Reactions Distort Intuitions about Wild Animals.” Essays on Reducing Suffering (2013)

[4] Horta, Oscar. “Debunking the idyllic view of natural processes: population dynamics and suffering in the wild.” Télos 17.1 (2010): 73-88.

[5] Ng, Yew-Kwang. “Towards welfare biology: Evolutionary economics of animal consciousness and suffering.” Biology and Philosophy 10.3 (1995): 255-285.

[6] Fred, Hapgood. Why males exist: an inquiry into the evolution of sex. 1979. Quoted in Tomasik, “The Importance of Wild Animal Suffering”.

[7] Tomasik, Brian. “How Many Wild Animals Are There?.” Essays on Reducing Suffering (2014).

[8] Dawkins, Richard. River out of Eden: A Darwinian view of life. Basic Books, 1996.

[9] Bostrom, Nick, and Toby Ord. “The Reversal Test: Eliminating Status Quo Bias in Applied Ethics*.” Ethics 116.4 (2006): 656-679.

[10] “Wild Wolves ‘good for Ecosystems'” BBC News. BBC, 31 Jan. 2007. Web. 25 Jan. 2016.

[11] Frederick, Shane, and George Loewenstein. “Hedonic adaptation.” (1999).

[12] Zoladz, Phillip R. An ethologically relevant animal model of post-traumatic stress disorder: Physiological, pharmacological and behavioral sequelae in rats exposed to predator stress and social instability. Diss. University of South Florida, 2008.

[13] Wilcox, Chritie. “Bambi or Bessie: Are Wild Animals Happier?” Scientific American Blog. N.p., 21 Apr. 2011. Web. 20 Jan. 2016.

[14] Dawkins, M. S. “Using behaviour to assess animal welfare.” Animal welfare-potters bar then Wheathampstead- 13 (2004): S3-S8.

[15] Freuling, Conrad M., et al. “The elimination of fox rabies from Europe: determinants of success and lessons for the future.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 368.1623 (2013): 20120142.

[16] Pearce, David. “A Welfare State for Elephants?.” RELATIONS 3.2. November 2015-Wild Animal Suffering and Intervention in Nature: Part II (2015): 153.

References (other than those in footnotes)

Cowen, Tyler. “Policing nature.” Environmental Ethics 25.2 (2003): 169-182.

Dawkins, Marian. Animal suffering: the science of animal welfare. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012.

Ebert, Rainer, and Tibor R. Machan. “Innocent threats and the moral problem of carnivorous animals.” Journal of Applied Philosophy 29.2 (2012): 146-159.

Howard-Snyder, F. “Doing versus allowing harm.” The Stanford encyclopaedia of philosophy (2014).

Allen, Colin & Trestman, Michael. “Animal consciousness.” TheStanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (2009)

Nothing quite kills the mood at a dinner party like discussions of religion, politics, abortion, or veganism. So I thought it would be a bang-up idea if in THIS video, we discuss all four! (I don’t have much of a social life…)

Among the litany of objections to and arguments against veganism, from your standard “plants have feelings” and “but lions eat meat,” lies an area of discourse not so easily answered or discounted: the vegan stance on abortion. [tweet this]

The topics of abortion and veganism do share common ground. Both are decidedly polarizing issues quick to spark heated debate, [tweet this] have passionately outspoken individuals on either side of the issue, often utilize similar tactics within their outreach, education, and demonstrations, and involve a strong focus on the concepts of sentience, individuality, pain perception and consciousness.

Before we dive into this moralistic minefield, let me first state that I will not be settling the abortion debate in this video. Sorry to disappoint. What I will do is present the various arguments posed, along with perceived logical inconsistencies, and scientific insights. I will also be using the common terms of pro-life and pro-choice though I realize that either side has issues with these and have their own terminology. This is merely to simplify the rhetoric in order to address the topic at hand.

I’d like to add that there is no vegan consensus or official doctrine on abortion. Vegans, like the rest of the world’s population, hold very different beliefs outside of their refusal to participate in the exploitation of non-human animals. Views on abortion are often, but not always, heavily influenced by ones religious or spiritual practice and morals, which vary as wildly amongst vegans as non.[1][2][3][4][5][6]

In fact the issue of whether abortion is even relevant to veganism itself is hotly debated. While the abortion issue is, at least from my personal experience, most often thrown out as a diversion tactic intended to invalidate veganism as a whole, there remain a few very real and valid intersections to explore.

The disconnect most often perceived within the veganism and abortion debate is the pro-choice vegan. [tweet this] Let’s start at the surface and the most basic argument against pro-choice veganism: if vegans are against killing, then we have to be against all killing. The fallacy in this position is what’s called a false dilemma, posing a black and white reality when ample grey exists.

Even most peace-loving pacifists would defend themselves against an attacker and find no moral fault in the death of a perpetrator during a true kill-or-be-killed situation.

On the other side of the coin lies the most basic defense for pro-choice veganism: abortion is dealing with a fetus in utero, of which the sentience, consciousness and pain perception continues to be hotly debated, while veganism deals with beings who are undeniably sentient, conscious, and pain-perceiving. However, as we will soon see, this oversimplification fails to account for countless complex nuances, though it is without doubt the most striking divergence, and one to take into account.

When we start delving deeper into the abortion debate, the lines begin to blur even further.

The ability of a fetus to feel pain is a primary argument of the pro-life camp. Seeing as how the prevention of pain and suffering is a pillar of vegan ethics as well, it would appear that pro-choice vegans are left with quite the conundrum. If, in fact, a fetus can feel pain, then the born vs. unborn moral distinction fails. The key word being “if.”

Here’s one of the places the abortion debate lacks the clarity of veganism. Scientists still do not agree on fetal pain perception. A 2005 meta-analysis concluded that, “fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester.”[7]

A 2010 review by Britain’s Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, stated that, “the fetus cannot experience pain in any sense prior [to 24 weeks].”[8][9]

The earliest estimate comes from Dr. Kanwaljeet S. Anand, something of an outlier in the field and oft-quoted by the pro-life cause.[10][11][12] Anand proposes a window of 18-24 weeks,[13][14] though he’s emphasized that, “fetal pain does not have much relevance for abortion, since most abortions are performed before the fetus is capable of experiencing pain,”[15] with only 1.5% of abortions occurring after 20 weeks in the United States.[16]

One element clouding the issue is the difference between nociception and pain, something I discuss more in-depth in my video “Do Fish Feel Pain.”[17] In short, there can be reaction to potentially painful or harmful stimuli without the experience of pain, and nociceptors, which appear as early as 7 weeks, are not in and of themselves capable of relaying pain.[18]

Of course, this uncertainty doesn’t exactly place pro-choice veganism in the clear. Many vegans believe that the ability of non-human animals to feel pain shouldn’t have to be scientifically proven to our satisfaction before we stop abusing them. Why conduct cruel studies when they make it glaringly obvious with crying out, trying to escape, flinching, struggling, and showing indicators of psychological stress? We should operate on the assumption that they can feel pain. So why then, does this courtesy not extend to a human fetus?

If pain alone were the issue, vegans would support the killing of unconscious animals and pro-lifers wouldn’t protest the abortion of fetuses prior to the development of pain perception. But both issues have additional layers, such as conscious awareness or sentience, and future life interests.

Vegans see the sentience of non-human animals, meaning their ability to feel, perceive and experience life subjectively, as a solid grounds for their protection. Often interchanged with “consciousness,” sentience in non-human animals is widely accepted among scientists, with over 2,500 studies and the release of an international Declaration of Consciousness in 2012.[19][20][21]

Similar to the variances in pain-perception development, the certainty of sentience is lacking within the abortion debate. Still, as vegan activist Gary Yourofsky has stated, “sentience [isn’t] the only factor when deciding how we should treat other beings. (Even though trees, mountains, air and water are insentient life forces, I think they have a right NOT to be exploited and polluted and destroyed.)”[22]

Where the argument against pro-choice veganism really gains some ground is the discussion of life potential. Vegans, including myself, often argue that even if we could somehow, someway actually kill a non-human animal without any pain or awareness, it would still be unethical as we could be choosing to end their life prematurely. We do not see such an action as our choice, as personal choice is no longer personal when it involves the welfare of another.

How, then, can a vegan possibly support the choice to abort the potential life of a human? The argument that the fetus is not aware of a future won’t stand unless vegans also condone the killing of animals who are unaware or unconscious at the time of death. So have we circled back to the born vs. unborn divide? Again this becomes hazy with the uncertainty of pain and sentience.

There exists an element of self-defense congruent with vegan ideals that can be applied to abortion in the cases of rape and incest or when the life of the mother is at stake. But what about abortion out of inconvenience or financial strain? Or sex-selective abortions wherein female fetuses are aborted due to male cultural preference, a practice most often associated with China[23][24][25] and India,[26][27][28][29][30] but prevalent in many other countries where males increasingly outnumber females.[31][32][33] Is choosing to stop the potential life of a fetus for what could be termed one’s own comfort a parallel to meat eaters ending the lives of non-human animals for their own comfort?

Even more direct parallels exist. In my video “Is Lab Grown Meat Vegan,”[34] I discussed the harvesting methods for bovine fetal serum, a growth medium used within a wide range of laboratory experiments, along with fetal pig and fetal sheep serums. Bovine fetal serum is obtained by piercing and draining the beating heart of fetal calves who’ve been cut from their mothers’ wombs in slaughterhouses.

This practice was understandably met with horror and disgust from vegan viewers and even non-vegans. Were any of these vegans pro-choice, would this reaction be an indication of dissonance or hypocrisy? The study I cited went on in length about the potential pain-perception of the bovine fetuses and referenced a general acceptance of 24 weeks for human fetus pain perception, and presented a figure of roughly 12 weeks, or 3 months for cows, who are more fully developed at birth than humans.[35]

Again the variances in situation may create a buffer for the pro-choice vegan given that bovine fetuses must be at least 3 months old to provide enough serum and are often 6 months or older when put through this procedure without any anesthesia, well beyond the point of pain perception. Additionally, it’s readily evident that a human mother procuring an abortion differs dramatically from cutting a living fetus from the body of a mother cow slaughtered against her will in order to drain the heart for profit.

I would like to bring up another wrinkle. While vegans believe in the rights of non-human animals, the majority, from what I have found, which is by no means conclusive, do seem to support the spaying and neutering of companion animals.[36][37][38] While this is most certainly a violation of their rights, it is not, as Gary Yourofsky has written,[39] a cruel practice when performed properly. He, along with many activists, argues that since the domestication of dogs and cats will not be undone anytime soon, spaying and neutering is a better alternative than the current cruel and needless deaths of millions of abandoned, unwanted companion animals due to overbreeding.[40]

Once again the parallel is by no means ideal, as our animal companions have no ability to make this choice for themselves, and spaying and neutering prevents a pregnancy while abortion ends one. I present this simply as an example of vegans being faced with an ethical ambiguity and supporting the restriction of animals’ reproductive rights.

At the more misanthropic end of the spectrum, since humanity continues to murder trillions of innocent beings every year, decimate the planet, and grow in population and demand for meat, could it be argued that stemming this proliferation at its root would actually be perfectly inline with vegan principles?

Any attempt to present a singular vegan view on abortion negates the diversity and variance of vegans themselves. Many vegans reject the aforementioned “animals vs. humans” dichotomy, seeing human and animal rights as inextricable – to be protected and fought for concurrently.

Something I personally find fascinating in this whole debate is the focus on whether vegans can be pro-choice. With all of the uncertainties inherent in fetal pain-perception and sentience and the absolute certainties of non-human animal c pain-perception and sentience it’s interesting that the more concrete question usually remains unasked: non-vegans be pro-life?

As I said in the opener, I’m not going to settle the abortion debate, or even the veganism and abortion debate. Even with my attempts at simplifications, it’s evident how complex this dialogue can easily become.

I’d love to hear your thoughts on the debate in the comments below!

This video took approximately 64 hours to produce. If you’d like to help support Bite Size Vegan so I can keep putting in the long hours to bring you this educational resource, please check out the support page where you can give a one-time-donation or receive perks and rewards by joining the Nugget Army on Patreon. I’d like to give a special thanks my $50 and above patrons and my whole Patreon family for making this and all of my videos possible.

If you enjoyed this post, please give the video a thumbs up and share the post around to spark debate. You can use the share buttons at the base of this post or any of the pre-made tweetables throughout this post.

If you’re new, I’d love to have you as a subscriber. I put out fresh vegan content every Monday, Wednesday, and some Fridays.

Now go live vegan, be sure to show this video at your next dinner party, and I’ll see you soon.

➣ More “IS THIS VEGAN?” Series
➣ Do Fish Feel Pain? [more on nociception] ➣ Is Lab Meat Vegan? [bovine fetal issue] ➣ The REAL Environmental Cost [human impact] ➣ How Many Animals Do We Kill Every Year? [human impact] ➣ The Sh*t People Say To Vegans [objections parody] ➣ Plants Have Feelings!
➣ Do Animals Grieve?
➣ Are Tampons Vegan? [includes fetal serum usage]

CITATIONS [Full Bibliography of Works Consulted Below Citations]

[1] Rhys Southan, “The Trouble With Being a Pro-Choice Vegan,” Let Them Eat Meat, December 18, 2012.

[2] “Animals and Abortion Part 1: How PETA Gets It Wrong,” Abortion Gang, May 25, 2011.

[3] “My Pro-Choice Veganism,” Abortion Gang, December 20, 2010.

[4] Marthe Endresen, “The Hypocrisy of Vegans Who Support Abortion,” Live Action News, March 27, 2015.

[5] Jo Stepaniak, “Veganism and Abortion: Grassroots Veganism with Jo Stepaniak,”, accessed April 7, 2016.

[6] M. (known as) “butterflies” Katz, “Vegan Views on Abortion, War, Gun Control, and Capital Punishment,” VEGANISM, July 28, 2012.

[7] Lee SJ et al., “Fetal Pain: A Systematic Multidisciplinary Review of the Evidence,” JAMA 294, no. 8 (August 24, 2005): 947–54, doi:10.1001/jama.294.8.947.

[8] Working Party Report, “Fetal Awareness Review of Research and Recommendations for Practice” (Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, March 2010).

[9] Pam Belluck, “Complex Science at Issue in Politics of Fetal Pain,” The New York Times, September 16, 2013.

[10] “Expert Report of Kanwaljeet S. Anand, M.B.B.S., D.Phil.,” accessed April 8, 2016.

[11] Belluck, “Complex Science at Issue in Politics of Fetal Pain.”

[12] Ashley Morrow Fragoso, “Fetal Pain: Can Unborn Children Feel Pain in the Womb?” (Family Research Council, 2010).

[13] K. J. Anand and M. Maze, “Fetuses, Fentanyl, and the Stress Response: Signals from the Beginnings of Pain?,” Anesthesiology 95, no. 4 (October 2001): 823–25.

[14] K. J. Anand and P. R. Hickey, “Pain and Its Effects in the Human Neonate and Fetus,” The New England Journal of Medicine 317, no. 21 (November 19, 1987): 1321–29, doi:10.1056/NEJM198711193172105.

[15] Belluck, “Complex Science at Issue in Politics of Fetal Pain.”

[16] “Induced Abortion in the United States” (Guttmacher Institute, March 2016).

[17] Emily Moran Barwick, “Do Fish Feel Pain?,”, April 1, 2015.

[18] Aida Salihagic Kadic, “Fetal Neurology: The Role of Fetal Stress,” Donald School Journal of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology 9, no. 1 (2015).

[19] Phillip Low, “The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness” (Francis Crick Memorial Conference on Consciousness in Human and non – Human Animals: Churchill College, University of Cambridge, July 7, 2012).

[20] Marc Bekoff, “Scientists Conclude Nonhuman Animals Are Conscious Beings,” Psychology Today, August 10, 2012.

[21] Marc Bekoff, “A Universal Declaration on Animal Sentience: No Pretending,” Psychology Today, June 20, 2013.

[22] Gary Yourofsky, “Abortion Stance,” Email correspondence with author, April 4, 2015.

[23] Zeng Yi et al., “Causes and Implications of the Recent Increase in the Reported Sex Ratio at Birth in China,” Population and Development Review 19, no. 2 (1993): 283–302, doi:10.2307/2938438.

[24] Chu Junhong, “Prenatal Sex Determination and Sex-Selective Abortion in Rural Central China,” Population and Development Review 27, no. 2 (2001): 259–81.

[25] Wei Xing Zhu et al., “China’s Excess Males, Sex Selective Abortion, and One Child Policy: Analysis of Data from 2005 National Intercensus Survey,” BMJ: British Medical Journal 338, no. 7700 (2009): 920–23.

[26] “Trends in Sex Ratio at Birth and Estimates of Girls Missing at Birth in India” (United Nations Population Fund – India, July 2010).

[27] “India at Glance – Population Census 2011,”, accessed April 10, 2016.

[28] “IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PCPNDT ACT – Perspectives and Challenges” (Public Health Foundation of India, Supported by United Nations FPA, April 2010).

[29] Registrar General & Census Commisioner C. Chandramouli, “Child Sex Ration In India” (India, 2011).

[30] “Census of India 2011: Child Sex Ratio Drops to Lowest since Independence,” accessed April 10, 2016.

[31] “Workshop on Skewed Sex Ratios at Birth: Addressing the Issue and the Way Forward” (United Nations Population Fund, October 5, 2001).

[32] “Trends in Sex Ratio at Birth and Estimates of Girls Missing at Birth in India.”

[33] Daniel Goodkind, “Should Prenatal Sex Selection Be Restricted? Ethical Questions and Their Implications for Research and Policy,” Population Studies 53, no. 1 (1999): 49–61.

[34] Emily Moran Barwick, “Is Lab Grown Meat Vegan?,”, March 28, 2016.

[35] Carlo EA Jochems et al., “The Use of Fetal Bovine Serum: Ethical or Scientific Problem?,” ATLA-NOTTINGHAM- 30, no. 2 (2002): 219–28.

[36] “Do You Guys Spay or Neuter Your Pets? • /r/vegan,” Reddit, accessed April 7, 2016.

[37] “View Topic – Is Spaying & Neutering Inconsistent With Animal Rights?,” accessed April 7, 2016.

[38] “Spay and Neuter,” PETA, accessed April 7, 2016.

[39] Gary Yourofsky, “‘Dogs and Cats’ Section of Other Animal Rights Issues,”, accessed April 7, 2016.

[40] “Companion Animal Overpopulation,” PETA, accessed April 7, 2016.

BIBLIOGRAPHY (Click to Expand)

113th Congress. “PAIN-CAPABLE UNBORN CHILD PROTECTION ACT.” House Report. U.S. Government Publishing Office, June 14, 2013.

“Abortion | Data and Statistics | Reproductive Health | CDC.” Center For Disease Control and Prevention. Accessed April 7, 2016.

“Abortion Surveillance — United States, 2012.” Center For Disease Control and Prevention, November 27, 2015.

“All about Veganism.” Accessed April 7, 2016.

Anand, K. J., and P. R. Hickey. “Pain and Its Effects in the Human Neonate and Fetus.” The New England Journal of Medicine 317, no. 21 (November 19, 1987): 1321–29. doi:10.1056/NEJM198711193172105.

Anand, K. J., and M. Maze. “Fetuses, Fentanyl, and the Stress Response: Signals from the Beginnings of Pain?” Anesthesiology 95, no. 4 (October 2001): 823–25.

“Animals and Abortion Part 1: How PETA Gets It Wrong.” Abortion Gang, May 25, 2011.

“An Overview of Abortion Laws.” Guttmacher Institute, March 1, 2016.

“Ask the Appeal: How Do Vegans Justify Keeping Carnivorous Pets (AKA, Cats)? | SF Appeal: San Francisco’s Online Newspaper.” Accessed April 7, 2016.

Assosiated Press. “Study: Fetus Feels No Pain until Third Trimester.”, August 24, 2005.

“AVMA: Mandatory Spay/neuter a Bad Idea.” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, Executive Board Coverage, May 15, 2009.

Barwick, Emily Moran. “Do Fish Feel Pain?”, April 1, 2015.

———. “Is Lab Grown Meat Vegan?”, March 28, 2016.

Beck, Randy. “Twenty-Week Abortion Statutes: Four Arguments.” SSRN Scholarly Paper. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network, February 1, 2016.

Bekoff, Marc. “A Universal Declaration on Animal Sentience: No Pretending.” Psychology Today, June 20, 2013.

———. “Scientists Conclude Nonhuman Animals Are Conscious Beings.” Psychology Today, August 10, 2012.

Belluck, Pam. “Complex Science at Issue in Politics of Fetal Pain.” The New York Times, September 16, 2013.

Capps, Ashley. “What About Vegans Who Feed Meat to Cats and Dogs?” Free From Harm, June 15, 2015.

“Census of India 2011: Child Sex Ratio Drops to Lowest since Independence.” Accessed April 10, 2016.

Chandramouli, Registrar General & Census Commisioner C. “Child Sex Ration In India.” India, 2011.

Close, Bryony, Keith Banister, Vera Baumans, Eva-Maria Bernoth, Niall Bromage, John Bunyan, Wolff Erhardt, et al. “Recommendations for Euthanasia of Experimental Animals: Part 2.” European Commission, October 1995.

Coghlan, Andy. “24-Week Fetuses Cannot Feel Pain.” New Scientist. Accessed April 8, 2016.

“Companion Animal Overpopulation.” PETA. Accessed April 7, 2016.

Corrigan, Lisa M. “Navigating the Junk Science of Fetal Pain,” April 29, 2013.

Culp-Ressler, Tara. “Everything You Need To Know About The 20-Week Abortion Ban Advancing In The House.” ThinkProgress, June 18, 2013.

———. “Everything You Need To Know About The 20-Week Abortion Ban Advancing In The House.” ThinkProgress, June 18, 2013.

“Data and Statistics | Reproductive Health | CDC.” Center For Disease Control and Prevention. Accessed April 7, 2016.

“Don’t Delay – Neuter or Spay.” Friends of Animals. Accessed April 7, 2016.

“Do You Guys Spay or Neuter Your Pets? • /r/vegan.” Reddit. Accessed April 7, 2016.

Endresen, Marthe. “The Hypocrisy of Vegans Who Support Abortion.” Live Action News, March 27, 2015.

“Expert Report of Kanwaljeet S. Anand, M.B.B.S., D.Phil.” Accessed April 8, 2016.

“Facts Are Important: Fetal Pain,” June 20, 2013.

Foley, Robert, and Michael Ferber. “Spaying and Neutering.” Angry Vet. Accessed April 7, 2016.

Fragoso, Ashley Morrow. “Fetal Pain: Can Unborn Children Feel Pain in the Womb?” Family Research Council, 2010.


Goodkind, Daniel. “Should Prenatal Sex Selection Be Restricted? Ethical Questions and Their Implications for Research and Policy.” Population Studies 53, no. 1 (1999): 49–61.

Guilmoto, Christophe Z. “Sex Imbalances at Birth: Current Trends, Consequences and Policy Implications.” UNFPA Asia and Pacific Regional Office: United Nations Population Fund, August 2012.

Guttmacher Institute. “State Policies on Later Abortions as of March 1, 2016.” State Policies in Brief. Guttmacher Institute, March 1, 2016.

hanalow. “Pro-Choice Is Not Anti-Vegan.” Hana Low | Opening Cages for Collective Liberation, January 15, 2015.

Harper, Breeze. “Vegans: Are You ‘pro-Life’, ‘pro-Choice’, or Have an Alternative Perspective on Abortion? |.” The Sistah Vegan Project. Accessed April 7, 2016.

“IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PCPNDT ACT – Perspectives and Challenges.” Public Health Foundation of India,  Supported by United Nations FPA, April 2010.

“India at Glance – Population Census 2011.” Accessed April 10, 2016.

“Induced Abortion in the United States.” Guttmacher Institute, March 2016.

Jochems, Carlo EA, Jan BF van der Valk, Frans R. Stafleu, and Vera Baumans. “The Use of Fetal Bovine Serum: Ethical or Scientific Problem?” ATLA-NOTTINGHAM- 30, no. 2 (2002): 219–28.

Junhong, Chu. “Prenatal Sex Determination and Sex-Selective Abortion in Rural Central China.” Population and Development Review 27, no. 2 (2001): 259–81.

Kadic, Aida Salihagic. “Fetal Neurology: The Role of Fetal Stress.” Donald School Journal of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology 9, no. 1 (2015).

Katz, M. (known As) “butterflies.” “Vegan Views on Abortion, War, Gun Control, and Capital Punishment.” VEGANISM, July 28, 2012.

Koch, Christof. “When Does Consciousness Arise in Human Babies?” Scientific American. Accessed April 7, 2016.

Lee SJ, Ralston H, Drey EA, Partridge J, and Rosen MA. “Fetal Pain: A Systematic Multidisciplinary Review of the Evidence.” JAMA 294, no. 8 (August 24, 2005): 947–54. doi:10.1001/jama.294.8.947.

Low, Phillip. “The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness.” Francis  Crick  Memorial Conference on Consciousness in Human and non – Human Animals: Churchill College, University of Cambridge, July 7, 2012.

“Map: Abortion Laws in the United States.” Statesman. Accessed April 7, 2016.

Merker, Bjorn. “Consciousness without a Cerebral Cortex: A Challenge for Neuroscience and Medicine.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 30, no. 01 (February 2007): 63–81. doi:10.1017/S0140525X07000891.

“My Pro-Choice Veganism.” Abortion Gang, December 20, 2010.

Partial Birth Abortion Prohibited. 18 U.S.C. § 1531, 2003.

Paul, Annie Murphy. “Babies – Fetal Pain – Abortions – Women – Pregnancy and Obstetrics – Medicine and Health.” The New York Times, February 10, 2008.

Peters, Jeremy W. “G.O.P. Pushes New Abortion Limits to Appease Vocal Base.” The New York Times, June 17, 2013.

Planned Parenthood. “ROE V. WADE: ITS HISTORY AND IMPACT.” Planned Parenthood Federation of America, January 2014.

“Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey 505 U.S. 833 (1992).” Justia Law. Accessed April 8, 2016.

“Roe v. Wade 410 U.S. 113 (1973).” Justia Law. Accessed April 8, 2016.

Salihagić-Kadić, A., and M. Predojevic. “What We Have Learned from Fetal Neurophysiology?” Donald School Journal of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology 6, no. 2 (April 1, 2012): 179–88.

Sheppard, Kate. “Behind the Right’s Fetal-Pain Push.” Mother Jones. Accessed April 8, 2016.

———. “Fetuses Feel Pain at 20 Weeks, and 4 Other Anti-Abortion Myths.” Mother Jones, June 20, 2012.

Southan, Rhys. “The Trouble With Being a Pro-Choice Vegan.” Let Them Eat Meat, December 18, 2012.

“Spay and Neuter.” PETA. Accessed April 7, 2016.

Stepaniak, Jo. “Veganism and Abortion: Grassroots Veganism with Jo Stepaniak.” Accessed April 7, 2016.

“The World’s Abortion Laws.” Accessed April 8, 2016.

“Trends in Sex Ratio at Birth and Estimates of Girls Missing at Birth in India.” United Nations Population Fund – India, July 2010.

US Congress. Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. Vol. House Committee Print 113–15, 2013.

“• View Topic – Is Spaying & Neutering Inconsistent With Animal Rights?” Accessed April 7, 2016.

Working Party Report. “Fetal Awareness Review of Research and Recommendations for Practice.” Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, March 2010.

“Workshop on Skewed Sex Ratios at Birth: Addressing the Issue and the Way Forward.” United Nations Population Fund, October 5, 2001.

Yi, Zeng, Tu Ping, Gu Baochang, Xu Yi, Li Bohua, and Li Yongpiing. “Causes and Implications of the Recent Increase in the Reported Sex Ratio at Birth in China.” Population and Development Review 19, no. 2 (1993): 283–302. doi:10.2307/2938438.

Yourofsky, Gary. “Abortion Stance,” April 4, 2015.

———. “‘Dogs and Cats’ Section of Other Animal Rights Issues.” Accessed April 7, 2016.

Zhu, Wei Xing, Li Lu, Therese Hesketh, Liu, and Zhang. “China’s Excess Males, Sex Selective Abortion, and One Child Policy: Analysis of Data from 2005 National Intercensus Survey.” BMJ: British Medical Journal 338, no. 7700 (2009): 920–23.

Posted in Ethics & Morality, Main Nuggets, Q&A, Vegan Is For Everyone, Vegan Lifestyle and tagged abortion, ethics, is this vegan, morality, religion, vegan lifestyle

← My Final Breakdown | Draw My LifeThe Greatest Lie Ever Told | Slam Poem →

0 thoughts on “Vegetarianism Argumentative Essay On Abortion”


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *