Do animals matter more than people? 

In some quarters of progressive Colorado, it appears so.

This fall, with an epically long general election ballot chock full of state and local ballot measures, civic organizations have been holding forums to discuss the merits of various proposals. Having attended several, and spoken at a few, I noticed a curious interplay between several ballot questions. 

Let me tell you about two of these forums, where I spoke on behalf of three measures proposed by Advance Colorado, which I advise (none of those measures are related to this story).

At both gatherings, which were largely attended by center-left audiences, advocates for the proposed constitutional right to abortion presented their case. This measure, which is an outlier in the country, would create an unlimited, taxpayer-subsidized right to abortion.   

What was striking was not the specifics of the amendment, but that its proponents exhibited a cavalier approach to it, as if this procedure had no moral gravity to it. There was zero cognizance that this is a profound decision to be taken by a pregnant woman. Their pitch is abortion is no more consequential than any other medical procedure, be it a tooth extraction or the removal of a benign cyst. 

They assiduously avoid any discussion of the medical aspects of abortion, and won’t go within a mile of what happens to the fetus.

The advocates tout that their measure has zero limitations on when abortions can be performed, arguably up to the moment of birth. A moderator from a Colorado media organization, who is no conservative, asked one of the speakers why any limits were rejected in the writing of the measure.

Stay up to speed: Sign up for daily opinion in your inbox Monday-Friday

The speaker, rather than honoring a serious question, decided the most effective answer was to sneer and offer a flippant response. 

“Well name me a procedure for men that has limits?”

Which elicited massive applause and cheers.

Their abortion advocacy is so morally sanitized a state representative at one of the forums passed me chanting “Yay, abortion! Yay, abortion!”  

Is this really something society should celebrate as we pass out cheerleading pom poms? Is there no room to acknowledge this is a serious matter that should give any decent person pause? 

There also was once a consensus, even among some supporters of abortion rights, that forcing pro-life taxpayers, who have deep moral reservations, to pay for abortions with their tax dollars is wrong and unfair.  

So we are expected to ignore any qualms about abortion. And one dares not mention the alternative of adoption or providing material support and encouragement for the mother to keep the baby. 

And then at both forums came the animal-rights advocates. It was time to focus on why we should ban hunting of mountain lions and other big cats and why Denver voters should prohibit the use of animal fur and the operation of a major slaughterhouse.

Though I have dived deep into the specifics of these measures in previous columns, here is what was shockingly ironic.

Proponents of these measures argued, sometimes choking up with emotion, over the cruelty of trophy hunting, or the killing of animals for fur or for supper. Speakers, particularly on the fur and slaughterhouse bans, discussed in graphic detail what happens to these animals — including detailing how dismembered lambs are discarded without a second thought. 

They say quite clearly that the treatment of these animals is amoral, cruel conduct that decent society should never tolerate. Defenders of the fundamental rights of animals emotionally plead there are prudent, constructive alternatives to wantonly destroying life for fur and meat. And that managing a population of wild animals, or simply choosing to hunt mountain lions, is retrogressive and barbaric. 

I leaned over to a prominent progressive strategist, who is pro-choice on abortion, and said, “Replace the word ‘lamb’ with ‘baby’ and you can see where pro-life people are coming from.” 

We have arrived at a point where liberals are so myopic they literally cheer the destruction of innocent human life but shake their heads in sobbing disbelief over the killing of animals — and cannot see the irony in their reactions. 

Let us stand and defend, they cry with moralistic outrage, the fundamental rights of animals. And let us demonize as narrow-minded those who would stand and defend the rights of unborn humans.

It’s just another example of how Colorado is flying backward at warp speed.

Sean Duffy, a former deputy chief of staff to Gov. Bill Owens, is a communications and media relations strategist and ghostwriter based in the Denver area.