This argument is simply incongruous

As an animal lover who has rescued more dogs than I can count, I abhor what Michael Vick did. As a lover of babies, I abhor even more what is being done in our country in the name of "choice." I find incongruous those who vehemently defend the rights of animals while criticizing those who speak on the behalf of aborted fellow human beings. They justify their criticism, using the Supreme Court's decision to legalize abortion on demand.

When the Supreme Court proclaimed that unborn children were not human beings, it mimicked a court decision of many years ago that proclaimed that black people were not human and therefore did not deserve the rights of whites. The court's decision then did not make the practice of slavery morally correct, any more than that of the more recent court championing the lie that babies inside are not as human as those outside. And just as the court finally recognized and made their minds alive to the fact that black Americans are human and deserve the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, so it is the pro-lifer's goal to bring recognition to the fact that unborn children are people, too, deserving of those same rights.

In the meantime, those of us who are pro-life will continue to point out the inconsistencies of those who would elevate the lives of animals over those of human beings. Perhaps someday, they will recognize that their illogical thinking has blinded them to the truth and the scientific reality that we humans carry and birth human beings. I wonder if we carried baby puppies if they would be more compassionate?

Dana Albers

Arlington Heights