A rational, secular case exists for the rights of the unborn. Individual human life is a continuum from fertilization until death. Zygote, embryo, fetus, infant, toddler, adolescent, adult, etc. are all different stages of human development. To destroy that life at any stage of development is to destroy that individual.

The real question in the abortion debate is not the seemingly absurd scenario of giving full human rights to human zygotes, but rather the thorny question of how to legally protect those rights without violating a new mother's privacy and civil liberties. And the right to privacy is not absolute. If parents are abusing an already born child, for example, government "intrusion" is warranted--children have rights.

Recognizing the rights of another class of beings limits our freedoms and our choices and requires a change in our lifestyle--the abolition of (human) slavery is a good example of this. A 1964 New Jersey court ruling required a pregnant woman to undergo blood transfusions--even if her religion forbade it--for the sake of her unborn child. One could argue, therefore--apart from religion--that recognizing the rights of the unborn, like the rights of blacks, women, lesbians and gays, children, animals and the environment, is a sign of social progress.

Animal rights activists have even proven themselves to be “anti-choice” depending upon the issue. A 1994 letter in The Animals’ Voice Magazine, for example, states: “Exit polls in Aspen, Colorado, after the failed 1989 fur ban was voted on, found that most people were against fur but wanted people to have a choice to wear it. Instead of giving in, we should take the offensive and state in no uncertain terms that to abuse and kill animals is wrong, period! There is no choice because another being had to suffer to produce that item...an eventual ban on fur would be impossible if we tell people that they have some sort of ‘choice’ to kill...remember, no one has the 'right to choose' death over life for another being.”

Similarly, a 2003 letter in Veg-News reads: “I did have some concerns about (the) Veg Psych column which asserted that we must respect a non-vegan’s ‘right to choose’ her/his food. While I would never advocate intolerance (quite the opposite actually), arguing that we have a ‘right to choose’ when it comes to eating meat, eggs, and dairy is akin to saying we have a ‘right to choose’ to beat dogs, harass wildlife, and torture cats. Each is a clear example of animal cruelty, whether we’re the perpetrators ourselves, or the ones who pay others to commit the violence on our behalf. Clearly, we have the ability to choose to cause animal abuse, but that doesn’t translate into a right to make that choice.”

Recognizing the rights of another class of beings, of course, limits our freedoms and our choices, and requires a change in our personal lifestyle. The abolition of (human) slavery is a good example of this.

This point was made clear by pro-life feminist Ginny Desmond Billinger, in an article entitled "Confessions of an Anti-Choice Fanatic," which originally appeared in the September/October 1982 issue of Minnesota Feminists For Life, and which later appeared in Pro-Life Feminism: Different Voices, in 1985:

"Let's take a look at just a few of the other issues that I, as an avowed antichoicer, am ready to address:

"Spouse and child beating--here, my position is unhesitatingly anti-choice. My perspective as a spouse, a parent, and a former child qualifies me to support all measures to remove from people the freedom to choose to abuse their family members--even in the privacy of their own homes.

"Drunk driving--Again, anti-choice. I'm afraid I must impose my morality on those who would choose to operate life-threatening machines while influenced by alcohol, and ask them to temporarily abstain from one or the other.

"Gun control--Despite the big-bucks, 'constitutional rights' lobbying by the NRA, I remain consistently anti-choice on this issue. The memory of a friend, forces me to reject any justification for handgun ownership without strict regulation.

"Endangered species protection--Faced with a whale-hunter or seal-clubber, I'll take a hard line anti-choice stand every time.

"Hazardous waste disposal--We're talking about the rights of corporate America vs. the average Joe here, but my anti-choice position still applies. The right to choose efficient business practices must always be weighed against the public's right to a safe environment. Ditto for occupational safety and health issues.

"I expect that these declarations will leave me open to censure; I will no doubt be labeled a heretic. The American principle of personal liberty would surely suffer with the propagation of my anti-choice philosophy...

"So call me what you will: pro-life, anti-choice, fetus-worshipper, anti-abortion. A thousand labels will never alter the certainty that the road to freedom cannot be paved with the sacrificed rights of others."