Wait - abortion is categorically forbidden by scripture, sacred tradition and natural reason? Would that be the same scripture, sacred tradition and natural reason that kept men in ecclesial power to the exclusion of women? That ignored the equality of homosexuals?

Sorry, my cynicism aside, I would like to know the scriptural basis. Forming you in your mother’s womb and thou shalt not kill still depend on your understanding of a fetus. My own leanings tend to be pro-life - I am pro-choice in the cases of abortion, anti-death penalty in all cases, and a pacifist. I think including animal rights in such pro-life terms is, in fact, very Christian. After all, Adam was charged with the stewardship of all creation in Genesis, not the despotic domination of it.

Now, having said that, I admit I’m a carnivore - I eat meat, eggs, dairy - and I do so with a clear conscience. The voles? I don’t know. I appreciate being given different perspectives on animal rights, though, and the various opinions people have.

It saddens me that you can be simultaneously in favor of abortion rights and animal rights. How come you can’t work up the same sympathy towards an unborn baby as you can towards a vole?

There is very little ground in Christian tradition for an animal rights perspective. The Book of Acts specifically says that all animals are lawful for Christians (horsemeat may be an exception as it was banned by one of, I believe, the 13th century Popes.) St. Francis loved animals but he also accepted the Christian truth that animals are ontologically inferior to us, as we are ontologically inferior to the angels. Abortion, on the other hand, is categorically forbidden by scripture, sacred tradition and natural reason.

As for this study, of course it troubles me. Earlier this summer I was collecting insects for a survey and it pained me a little as I had to drop them in preservative and watch them drown. Nevertheless, my study is going to contribute to a better understanding of agricultural and grassland systems that could help feed people someday. And the vole researchers have learned something about vole nature that could help us better understand, and treasure, the gifts of Christian love and friendship. When it comes right down to it, voles are not people, and it is legitimate to do things to them that we would not do to people.

I say this as the son of a man who died of cancer, died far too young, died as I stroked him gently in his bed, died weighing less than eighty pounds. I would not sacrifice the life of a single vole or monkey or rat so that my father could have lived. And I loved that man with all my heart — but I know, in the final analysis, that all living and sentient, pain and joy-feeling creatures are equally valuable.

Again, I come from the perspective that rights reside not in humanness but in sentience. The evidence from the vole experiment is that these small rodents are sentient, and thus as deserving of life as any human person.

As for your remarks about meat: amen, sister, amen!

Scientists, as a rule, don’t enjoy having to kill rodents in their research. Biologists are often animal people, which is why they got into biology. The focus that animal rights people put on animal testing annoys me, because the target is selected in no small part because the people who do it are a minority and their ways are hard for outsiders to understand, making it easier to legislate against them. The real travesty in this world is the amount of meat that Americans eat that compels CAFOs. A handful of sad, then dead, rodents isn’t as troublesome to me as the thousands of animals that have lived miserable existences void of any joy and then are slaughtered to make sure that Americans get meat 3 times a day if they want it.

I can see why this stuff made you reconsider being a pacficist.