Abortion

  • Thread starter carbon monoxide perfume
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.

Esmeralda

Well-Known Member
TheAM, I'll try to help fill you in on what's going on here.

As far as I can tell, Anastasia believes humans are great, magnificent creations of God who deserve to reign supreme over all the other lower lifeforms.

This means it's okay for her to eat greasy bacon and ham sandwiches from the meat of slaughtered pigs, born only to exist in miserable conditions and then die in factories. Some vegetarians would try to defend the pigs, claiming they deserve respect, just as humans do. To her, these people are obviously wrong because pigs aren't as intelligent as we are, oh.. and intelligence is the only way to determine worth, right?

Remember: Humans are divine beings worthy of praise, all other life forms are inferior.

Her argument is that since abortion is a bad thing, it should be illegal, end of story.

Should everything that is considered immoral be illegal? Why? Why not?

Should we make an effort to examine both sides of arguments from a neutral, objective point-of-view? Does it matter what scientists and doctors have to say? Does acting for the greater good (overall statistics) of humanity matter, or is this purely an issue of personal morality? Are references important? Is it possible to even begin thinking about middle-ground solutions here?

Is logic really important to you personally, or is it only important if you agree with the position the logic is supporting?

If you were in control of our society, what specific changes would you make? What kind of repercussions would there be for these changes?

This is what I want you guys to start thinking about.
Even in a world in which God doesn't exist, and let's assume this is one, we ARE superior beings, mentally, emotionally and physically. That is why we dominate every other creature on the Earth, period. Did I ever say any kind of animal torture was acceptable? Don't be absurd, but humans are meant to eat meat as well as vegetables and fruits. Just look at out teeth.

If someone chooses not to eat meat because they don't believe in harming animals in any way, fine. But then I expect morally that they will go all the way with this. No meat, no dairy, no leather, no fur, no television (that's right, your television is made from animal products as is your computer monitor...better get rid of them!). I also expect that if they honestly feel killing animals for any reason is murder, they will not live in homes or have objects made of wood (how many animals die during the chopping down and destruction of their habitats?), etc., etc. I also expect people like this, who really believe this is murder, to lobby against all of these things and do their very best to make them illegal. But they don't do this do they? They believe that somehow, because it's too inconvenient for them to go all the way, they are not morally obligated to follow through with their beliefs. Is murder EVER ok? NO. So by that token, if you believe killing animals is murder, you should do everything you can physically do to make sure that NO animal has ever had to die for any of your daily conveniences. But guess what? These hypocrites will never do that.

On the other hand, I believe abortion is murder, plain and simple. So is the death penalty and so is euthanasia. So morally, how could I say that these things are a person's personal choice? Clearly I cannot, because then I would be a hypocrite. I believe murder should be illegal. Therefore, if abortion, euthanasia and execution are murder in my point of view, I must oppose them in any form, every time, for everyone. Period. Moral relativism has no place in this argument.
 

protonaut

Well-Known Member
Even in a world in which God doesn't exist, and let's assume this is one, we ARE superior beings, mentally, emotionally and physically. That is why we dominate every other creature on the Earth, period.
Agreed, but just because I'm superior to animals in these ways doesn't mean I must exploit them as people are doing by breeding and selling animals for the meat industry. I'm not saying you would say differently, I just want to make my position clear that I do consider the meat industry to be exploitation. It's a bit like bullying in some ways. Just because I'm bigger and stronger than someone weaker than myself doesn't mean I should bully them.

humans are meant to eat meat as well as vegetables and fruits. Just look at out teeth.
Humans can eat meat, but they don't have to. If I needed to eat meat, I could not survive without it. This is not the case in our modern world; humans can live long, healthy lives without meat or dairy products.

If someone chooses not to eat meat because they don't believe in harming animals in any way, fine. But then I expect morally that they will go all the way with this. No meat, no dairy, no leather, no fur, no television (that's right, your television is made from animal products as is your computer monitor...better get rid of them!). I also expect that if they honestly feel killing animals for any reason is murder, they will not live in homes or have objects made of wood (how many animals die during the chopping down and destruction of their habitats?), etc., etc. I also expect people like this, who really believe this is murder, to lobby against all of these things and do their very best to make them illegal. But they don't do this do they? They believe that somehow, because it's too inconvenient for them to go all the way, they are not morally obligated to follow through with their beliefs. Is murder EVER ok? NO. So by that token, if you believe killing animals is murder, you should do everything you can physically do to make sure that NO animal has ever had to die for any of your daily conveniences. But guess what? These hypocrites will never do that.
Line-drawing fallacy. Insisting that a line must be drawn at some precise point when in fact it is not necessary that such a line be drawn. You make the mistake of assuming that anyone who supports the rights of animals must go to impossibly extreme lengths in order to be an animal activist, or else they can't consider themselves as such without being a hypocrite.

As a vegan, I don't eat meat or dairy products, I support candidates who are for protection of natural habitats, I do my best to avoid buying products made of leather. Basically, I do what is possible, and it does help animals, especially the not buying/ eating of meat & dairy - that helps the most. Yes, I live in a house made of wood.. living here makes me a hypocrite? Of course not, it's better to accomplish some good for a cause than nothing at all.

Also, I don't watch TV.. though I do own a computer (obviously!) .. give me the source of information about computers containing animal parts, I'm just curious about that. There are many types of plastics made with no animal involved, so you must be thinking of something else. Regardless, it could also be said that a computer allows a person to research ways of helping animals, finding organizations, enables faster, easier donation processes, and helps people communicate and organize for causes that benefit animals. So I would think the positives outweigh the negatives there.. meaning a computer would not be negative towards that cause. Eating meat, on the other hand, doesn't really benefit animals at all.

Bottom line though - You do what you can for your cause, you do what's realistic. Humans should feel proud of making a difference, no matter how small. We're not perfect beings, we're not like Superman. There's nothing to be ashamed of there.

Why don't I oppose others' rights to eat meat? Well, for one thing - I realize that imposing my will upon others will accomplish nothing, especially in an environment where the majority would oppose my demands. I can't be a fascist in these situations - that's not how people work. I can explain the reasoning behind my choice to be Vegan, and if others are interested, they can follow suit. In the end, it is their choice to make. With some situations, people should have the right to choose. It all depends on the circumstances.

On the other hand, I believe abortion is murder, plain and simple. So is the death penalty and so is euthanasia. So morally, how could I say that these things are a person's personal choice? Clearly I cannot, because then I would be a hypocrite. I believe murder should be illegal. Therefore, if abortion, euthanasia and execution are murder in my point of view, I must oppose them in any form, every time, for everyone. Period. Moral relativism has no place in this argument.
There are many factors to consider in different situations, trying to apply the same pro-life or pro-choice stance on every issue does not mean you're helping the greater good at all. If your reasoning is that using the same pro-life approach on every issue is preventing you from being hypocritical, you really need to re-think this a lot. That's a very simplistic approach, and doesn't account for the incredible differences in context from one issue to the next. It scares me that people think this way.

I don't want to bring this thread off-topic though, but does anyone else see the problem I'm talking about?

I'd really like to see something positive grow from this thread, but we have to start from the beginning. We need a clean slate, and should carefully organize the Pros and Cons that have been mentioned.. and we need to start offering sources. It's extremely important to include citations and compare the sources of information, that goes for both sides.. we're both guilty of talking too much, and not backing it up with proper sources, research, etc.

Basically, this is a big mess, there's a lot of emotion on both sides.. so we have emotion - check - so how does the objectivism come into play? That's going to be used in our organization of Pros and Cons, as well as proper citations. Yes, it's a subjective issue, but objectivism is still important. We need to ask more questions, we need to define terminology. We need to more clearly understand what the biggest reasons are behind the stance of each person here. There's erroneous thinking all over the place.

I don't know if it's possible on this forum, I don't know - it could be a lost cause, it all depends on whether people are willing to put in the effort or not.

I feel like I should try to remain neutral at this point, just to explore the important areas of balancing this discussion first.

Here's a question.

Is there anyone here who is truly undecided on the issue? As far as I've seen, everyone seems to have a strong opinion one way or the other. Is there someone reading this right now who hasn't spoken up yet, someone who is honestly completely neutral or has just avoided thinking about the issue, and has no concrete opinion?
 

Esmeralda

Well-Known Member
Agreed, but just because I'm superior to animals in these ways doesn't mean I must exploit them as people are doing by breeding and selling animals for the meat industry. I'm not saying you would say differently, I just want to make my position clear that I do consider the meat industry to be exploitation. It's a bit like bullying in some ways. Just because I'm bigger and stronger than someone weaker than myself doesn't mean I should bully them.



Humans can eat meat, but they don't have to. If I needed to eat meat, I could not survive without it. This is not the case in our modern world; humans can live long, healthy lives without meat or dairy products.



Line-drawing fallacy. Insisting that a line must be drawn at some precise point when in fact it is not necessary that such a line be drawn. You make the mistake of assuming that anyone who supports the rights of animals must go to impossibly extreme lengths in order to be an animal activist, or else they can't consider themselves as such without being a hypocrite.

As a vegan, I don't eat meat or dairy products, I support candidates who are for protection of natural habitats, I do my best to avoid buying products made of leather. Basically, I do what is possible, and it does help animals, especially the not buying/ eating of meat & dairy - that helps the most. Yes, I live in a house made of wood.. living here makes me a hypocrite? Of course not, it's better to accomplish some good for a cause than nothing at all.

Also, I don't watch TV.. though I do own a computer (obviously!) .. give me the source of information about computers containing animal parts, I'm just curious about that. There are many types of plastics made with no animal involved, so you must be thinking of something else. Regardless, it could also be said that a computer allows a person to research ways of helping animals, finding organizations, enables faster, easier donation processes, and helps people communicate and organize for causes that benefit animals. So I would think the positives outweigh the negatives there.. meaning a computer would not be negative towards that cause. Eating meat, on the other hand, doesn't really benefit animals at all.

Bottom line though - You do what you can for your cause, you do what's realistic. Humans should feel proud of making a difference, no matter how small. We're not perfect beings, we're not like Superman. There's nothing to be ashamed of there.

Why don't I oppose others' rights to eat meat? Well, for one thing - I realize that imposing my will upon others will accomplish nothing, especially in an environment where the majority would oppose my demands. I can't be a fascist in these situations - that's not how people work. I can explain the reasoning behind my choice to be Vegan, and if others are interested, they can follow suit. In the end, it is their choice to make. With some situations, people should have the right to choose. It all depends on the circumstances.



There are many factors to consider in different situations, trying to apply the same pro-life or pro-choice stance on every issue does not mean you're helping the greater good at all. If your reasoning is that using the same pro-life approach on every issue is preventing you from being hypocritical, you really need to re-think this a lot. That's a very simplistic approach, and doesn't account for the incredible differences in context from one issue to the next. It scares me that people think this way.

I don't want to bring this thread off-topic though, but does anyone else see the problem I'm talking about?

I'd really like to see something positive grow from this thread, but we have to start from the beginning. We need a clean slate, and should carefully organize the Pros and Cons that have been mentioned.. and we need to start offering sources. It's extremely important to include citations and compare the sources of information, that goes for both sides.. we're both guilty of talking too much, and not backing it up with proper sources, research, etc.

Basically, this is a big mess, there's a lot of emotion on both sides.. so we have emotion - check - so how does the objectivism come into play? That's going to be used in our organization of Pros and Cons, as well as proper citations. Yes, it's a subjective issue, but objectivism is still important. We need to ask more questions, we need to define terminology. We need to more clearly understand what the biggest reasons are behind the stance of each person here. There's erroneous thinking all over the place.

I don't know if it's possible on this forum, I don't know - it could be a lost cause, it all depends on whether people are willing to put in the effort or not.

I feel like I should try to remain neutral at this point, just to explore the important areas of balancing this discussion first.

Here's a question.

Is there anyone here who is truly undecided on the issue? As far as I've seen, everyone seems to have a strong opinion one way or the other. Is there someone reading this right now who hasn't spoken up yet, someone who is honestly completely neutral or has just avoided thinking about the issue, and has no concrete opinion?
If you honestly believed that killing an animals for any purpose was tantamount to murder (which is my point here), then yes, it would be hypocritical for you to do anything in your life which results in animal death. Now, if you just like the little animals and want the best for them as long as you don't have to go to huge extremes, then do what you want, you are not morally obligated as long as you are true to your conscience.

As far as animal products we generally use, buy or come into regular contact with, here's a small list:


Book binding (synthetic glue used for binding is insoluble making recycling impossible)

Wallpaper

Paint

Rubber

Plastic

Pasta

Margarine

Most salad dressings

Sugar

Maple syrup

Beer

Wine

Cardboard

Cellophane

Wax paper

Ink

Carpet

Drywall

Your refrigerator

Asphalt

Concrete

Steel

Latex

X-ray film

Thermometers

Paper

Electrical circuitry

Toner for the photocopier

Fuel

Fire extinguishers

Photographic and movie film

Medicines

Paintbrushes

Musical instruments

Soap, shampoo, conditioner


If you think killing an animal is murder, you have to cut all of these things and more out of your life. If not, feel free to do what you want or even just to do a very small part by not eating meat and dairy, but you're kidding yourself if you think that the small amount of meat you do not eat is even putting a dent in the animal products you use every single day.


I also previously gave information on the development of the fetus (I know you are pretty adamant about the advice of doctors) and the things doctors had to say about the unborn. I won't repeat it again, though. And I think we all know how many abortions in this world are considered by the medical community to be "medically necessary".

If this was something else (the right to take drugs or drink alcohol) I would naturally take a much lighter stance. But to me, abortion is murder, and I will NEVER condone murder. Morally, how could I?
 

protonaut

Well-Known Member
I'm not strictly against every product that contains nutrients that were once part of a living being (oil, for example) because I don't believe it would require exploitation of living animals, much of the resources are already available.

It's the suffering of living animals that I'm against, obviously. You can't really be implying that humans can't live in a society without the slaughtering industries?

I don't believe all of the items on that list require the continuous slaughtering of animals for production. I seriously doubt it. Aside from obvious stuff like dairy products. I think you went a bit overboard because you thought I was against any product that contains material of any life form, which isn't the case. Plus, I don't even use half of those on your list anyway. I've been looking into a more self-sufficient lifestyle eventually, that would eliminate even more dependency on such products. I'll speak more on that later, as I don't want to bring this too far off-topic.. plus I'll probably bring up that subject as a separate thread later.

There's something important you forgot to mention though. Most of the items on your list (except food) don't have to be purchased continuously. Think about how much more of your money is going towards the meat industries due to constant consumption of dairy products and meat. Therefore, being Vegan does make a difference. Exception being fuel - which is on your list, but of course that's yet another area where scientists are working on alternatives. The technology for alternative fuels is already here, it's only the oil companies' dominance over the markets that slows the progress of alternatives. There are also many organic markets from trusted companies who make use of recycling, use alternative materials, and are vegan-friendly in many respects. More and more alternative resources are becoming available, there is a lot more usage overall from plant materials than there are from animal.

Anyway, I see now that this term - murder - seems to be an important source for your positions. This is what we should each focus on - the roots of our beliefs on the issue. Everyone here should examine the definitions of these kinds of terms, and try to understand what it really means to each of us individually. Let's go with this though. I wonder if everyone here could all agree on one definition.

How do each of you define murder? What is your definition? (sources?)

Is chopping down a tree murder? Why?

Could taking birth control pills be considered murder? Why?

What about putting someone out of their misery, who asks to be killed? Why?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not strictly against every product that contains nutrients that were once part of a living being (oil, for example) because I don't believe it would require exploitation of living animals, much of the resources are already available.

It's the suffering of living animals that I'm against, obviously. You can't really be implying that humans can't live in a society without the slaughtering industries?

I don't believe all of the items on that list require the continuous slaughtering of animals for production. I seriously doubt it. Aside from obvious stuff like dairy products. I think you went a bit overboard because you thought I was against any product that contains material of any life form, which isn't the case. Plus, I don't even use half of those on your list anyway. I've been looking into a more self-sufficient lifestyle eventually, that would eliminate even more dependency on such products. I'll speak more on that later, as I don't want to bring this too far off-topic.. plus I'll probably bring up that subject as a separate thread later.

There's something important you forgot to mention though. Most of the items on your list (except food) don't have to be purchased continuously. Think about how much more of your money is going towards the meat industries due to constant consumption of dairy products and meat. Therefore, being Vegan does make a difference. Exception being fuel - which is on your list, but of course that's yet another area where scientists are working on alternatives. The technology for alternative fuels is already here, it's only the oil companies' dominance over the markets that slows the progress of alternatives. There are also many organic markets from trusted companies who make use of recycling, use alternative materials, and are vegan-friendly in many respects. More and more alternative resources are becoming available, there is a lot more usage overall from plant materials than there are from animal.

Anyway, I see now that this term - murder - seems to be an important source for your positions. This is what we should each focus on - the roots of our beliefs on the issue. Everyone here should examine the definitions of these kinds of terms, and try to understand what it really means to each of us individually. Let's go with this though. I wonder if everyone here could all agree on one definition.

How do each of you define murder? What is your definition? (sources?)

Is chopping down a tree murder? Why?

Could taking birth control pills be considered murder? Why?

What about putting someone out of their misery, who asks to be killed? Why?
I must agree with most of this above. :unsure:
 

Esmeralda

Well-Known Member
I'm not strictly against every product that contains nutrients that were once part of a living being (oil, for example) because I don't believe it would require exploitation of living animals, much of the resources are already available.

It's the suffering of living animals that I'm against, obviously. You can't really be implying that humans can't live in a society without the slaughtering industries?

I don't believe all of the items on that list require the continuous slaughtering of animals for production. I seriously doubt it. Aside from obvious stuff like dairy products. I think you went a bit overboard because you thought I was against any product that contains material of any life form, which isn't the case. Plus, I don't even use half of those on your list anyway. I've been looking into a more self-sufficient lifestyle eventually, that would eliminate even more dependency on such products. I'll speak more on that later, as I don't want to bring this too far off-topic.. plus I'll probably bring up that subject as a separate thread later.

There's something important you forgot to mention though. Most of the items on your list (except food) don't have to be purchased continuously. Think about how much more of your money is going towards the meat industries due to constant consumption of dairy products and meat. Therefore, being Vegan does make a difference. Exception being fuel - which is on your list, but of course that's yet another area where scientists are working on alternatives. The technology for alternative fuels is already here, it's only the oil companies' dominance over the markets that slows the progress of alternatives. There are also many organic markets from trusted companies who make use of recycling, use alternative materials, and are vegan-friendly in many respects. More and more alternative resources are becoming available, there is a lot more usage overall from plant materials than there are from animal.

Anyway, I see now that this term - murder - seems to be an important source for your positions. This is what we should each focus on - the roots of our beliefs on the issue. Everyone here should examine the definitions of these kinds of terms, and try to understand what it really means to each of us individually. Let's go with this though. I wonder if everyone here could all agree on one definition.

How do each of you define murder? What is your definition? (sources?)

Is chopping down a tree murder? Why?

Could taking birth control pills be considered murder? Why?

What about putting someone out of their misery, who asks to be killed? Why?
I wasn't talking about fossil fuels per se, because those are made from animals that are already dead. Oils used for other kinds of fuel are almost all based on animal byproducts. And yes, I am saying that life would be impractical without the slaughtering industry. 55 percent of animals used for these things go towards meat and dairy, whereas 43 percent goes toward the things mentioned above. Literally 98% of the animal is used.

So you don't use plastic? You don't eat pasta? And the organic industry (although I buy organic most of the time if possible because it's more healthy) is based around manure as fertilizer harvested from cattle farms where the cattle are slaughtered. Do you think people just wander around a field looking for shit? No! They buy it from slaughterhouses so that they don't have to use chemicals that are harmful to the environment! Without slaughterhouses, there would be no "organic" fruits and veggies, and things like DHT would still be poisoning us.

As I said, recycling of paper could NOT happen without glue made from animal products because the glue in paper products like envelopes and books has to be animal-derived to be soluble in water, otherwise they would just pile up in landfills. Also, animal-based products are naturally bio-degradable, which synthetic materials are not. So without slaughterhouses, it would not be possible for companies to produce these bio-degradable items, like paper.

Trusts me when I say that you use more animal products than you can possibly imagine.

Every time you print or write something on paper, every time you eat an organic vegetable, every time you have a tooth x-ray or pack up your stuff to move in boxes, or have something dry-cleaned, you are using animal-based products bought from slaughterhouses.

Even alternative fuels (corn-based oils) are fertilized with cow manure purchased from slaughterhouses.

All of these thing require continuous slaughtering of animals, period.

These are facts that can not be refuted. Personally, I don't eat meat that often, but I use paper all the time. I print pictures or have them developed. There is steel and drywall and carpeting everywhere in my home. Condoms, plastic wrap and tupperware. It's everywhere! And I use those things a LOT more often than I have a cheeseburger.

As far as human beings go, my definition of murder is very simple. Killing a living human being...a.k.a. a fertilized zygote/fetus/baby or killing an already-born human being in a manner that does not involve self-defense.

And birth control under certain circumstances can sometimes cause the killing of a life because they often cause a fertilized egg to be rejected by making the uterus inhospitable to human life causing spontaneous abortion. I used to use birth control, but no longer. Natural Family Planning has been scientifically proven to be as effective (within 1%) as birth control (not the rhythm method, either, real biologically-based thermo-temperature cervical mucus based planning), so I use that now.

I consider murder to be the killing of a human, not an animal or a tree. Now keep in mind, maliciously killing a tree or a human for some sort of pleasure is of course wrong and unnecessary and frankly, a little bit sick, but it's not "murder". I believe in the sanctity of human life and the consciousness to be able to care for our Earth and try to prevent suffering of other living beings as well...but this is not paramount to me because (as I said) it is not the murder of a human being.

Yes, killing someone who wants to be put out of their misery is murder...even if it were my Mother or Husband begging me, it would be murder. If in a moment of weakness I did something like that, it would be a murder that I would have to live with for the rest of my life. I of course could choose to do that, but it doesn't change the fact that it is murder for me. It might be a very well-thought-out and deliberated murder, but murder nonetheless. My definition does not change based on arbitrary circumstances.

So to your question, for me, murder is the deliberate ending of any human life from conception to death in circumstances not related to self-defense (and by self-defense, I mean I would die if I did not protect myself in this way, and even then, if it were me or my unborn baby, I would most likely choose the life of my unborn baby before my own). If both the mother and the fetus are definitely going to die without an abortion, well, obviously it only makes sense to have the abortion and at least prevent one death.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Darken

Well-Known Member
If getting rid of all those products were required to stop animal torture and cruelty so be it. That is the sickest kind of immorality imo. By definition a baby is a parasite if it is unwanted. The person with the parasite has the right to get it out of their body at least. I remember anastasia you told me there is a difference between killing and murdering and I believe that is true, and if its not there is some forms of murder that are okay obviously.
 

me1

Well-Known Member
Even in a world in which God doesn't exist, and let's assume this is one, we ARE superior beings, mentally, emotionally and physically. That is why we dominate every other creature on the Earth, period. Did I ever say any kind of animal torture was acceptable? Don't be absurd, but humans are meant to eat meat as well as vegetables and fruits. Just look at out teeth.

If someone chooses not to eat meat because they don't believe in harming animals in any way, fine. But then I expect morally that they will go all the way with this. No meat, no dairy, no leather, no fur, no television (that's right, your television is made from animal products as is your computer monitor...better get rid of them!). I also expect that if they honestly feel killing animals for any reason is murder, they will not live in homes or have objects made of wood (how many animals die during the chopping down and destruction of their habitats?), etc., etc. I also expect people like this, who really believe this is murder, to lobby against all of these things and do their very best to make them illegal. But they don't do this do they? They believe that somehow, because it's too inconvenient for them to go all the way, they are not morally obligated to follow through with their beliefs. Is murder EVER ok? NO. So by that token, if you believe killing animals is murder, you should do everything you can physically do to make sure that NO animal has ever had to die for any of your daily conveniences. But guess what? These hypocrites will never do that.

On the other hand, I believe abortion is murder, plain and simple. So is the death penalty and so is euthanasia. So morally, how could I say that these things are a person's personal choice? Clearly I cannot, because then I would be a hypocrite. I believe murder should be illegal. Therefore, if abortion, euthanasia and execution are murder in my point of view, I must oppose them in any form, every time, for everyone. Period. Moral relativism has no place in this argument.


There are members within our own species who fit the criteria laid out by yourself for "superiority". By your logic they possess greater worth than the rest of us and as such can do as they please with us. I believe that you are walking on very shaky ground if you endorse this mentality. Since when is domination a good thing?

Men are physically superior to women and as such can dominate them, but does this mean they should?

Where is your evidence that humans are "meant" to eat meat. I could present metabolic proof of human herbivory. The teeth that i believe that you are possibly refering to are our cuspids, misnomered "canines", which in humans are incisor-form. This is not a characteristic of a natural flesh eater. In nature the species with incisor-form cuspids are all plant eaters, such as the elk. The shapes, sizes and positioning of teeth are vitally important when establishing their correct uses, not simply a non-analysized casual observation, such as "humans have 'canines'".

Everyday modern human life involves the deaths and or exploitation/suffering of a great number of humans also, if people are genuine in their distain for the taking of, or causing suffering to, human lives, they should cease doing all the things that require that this be so.

Murder is illegal. Those acts which all but identical, except in name, are labelled 'killing'. What difference this makes to the victim is anyone's guess, but there you go, humans are great at compartmentalising and rationalising clearly non-different behaviour.
 

Darken

Well-Known Member
There are members within our own species who fit the criteria laid out by yourself for "superiority". By your logic they possess greater worth than the rest of us and as such can do as they please with us. I believe that you are walking on very shaky ground if you endorse this mentality. Since when is domination a good thing?
Exactly. There is always a bigger fish. The superior species mentality leads to chaos war corruption. I respect all animals and I don't consider humans superior just different. How would you feel if giants or aliens or what ever enslaved us, made us live in our own shit and urine in tiny cages. Mass slaughtered and mistreated us, ate our fetuses for breakfast. They could just say they are superior. Hitler thought his people were superior and what happened. I would like to think that a technologically and morally superior race would have a little decency and care for other beings regardless of the comparison to theirselves. Death penalty is self defense, it protects people from others proven to be a imminent threat to society, it could be considered not a murder. I don't think we should kill any one though. Maybe morality doesn't mean shit in this world though, thats what I'm beginning to think, all that matters is survival in nature. It is either one way or the other, I don't understand how you can some one can believe in both.
 

Hae-Gi

Banned Member
Anastasia, your claim that vegetarians have to avoid everything that possibly can lead to death of animals is hypocritical and completely unrealistic, not to mention that you're deluded if truly believe that all of the things you pointed out, must lead to the death of animals. As for your hypocrisy, the same would apply to you, in regards to abortion; you could never use conventional medicine, since any medical company almost certainly makes birth control pills (that you say can lead to extremely early miscarriages) and/or morning after pills; buying medicine from them would give them income that would help them in their line of work. You also cannot approve of a stressful society, since such societies, with certainty, lead to far more miscarriages than, for instance, a simple one based in nature. You cannot find food with pesticides acceptable, either, since pesticides must be bound to increase miscarriages. Getting pregnant if you're not perfectly young cannot be accepted, either, since that definitely would mean more miscarriages. Not eating perfectly healthy would be unacceptable, too. The list continues.

As for protonaut's question on what signifies murder, I avoid that term, since its meaning is the same as that of "kill." Additionally, the term can lead to irritation, anger or hate, in situations such as, for instance, the following: "Four soldiers were 'murdered' by a gerilla in Baghdad." ; "An Iraqi family was 'killed' when it tried to pass a roadblock."

By the way, Anastasia, you never answered my question on if you would value a seal-like creature, with the same intellect as humans, as much as a human.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Azul

Well-Known Member
I think the more we learn to acknowledge the suffering we inflict upon animals, the more human we become. The indifference of our consumerism to these atrocities is baffling, when compared to e.g. the respect buddhism and some variations of hinduism shows to animals.
Japanese novellist Masuji Ibuse describes in his novel "Black Rain" a buddhist rite called "the mass for dead insects" where after the harvest the farmers would pray for the souls of the insects they crushed during the harvesting. We are very far from such a civilized stance.
 

Esmeralda

Well-Known Member
Anastasia, your claim that vegetarians have to avoid everything that possibly can lead to death of animals is hypocritical and completely unrealistic, not to mention that you're deluded if truly believe that all of the things you pointed out, must lead to the death of animals. As for your hypocrisy, the same would apply to you, in regards to abortion; you could never use conventional medicine, since any medical company almost certainly makes birth control pills (that you say can lead to extremely early miscarriages) and/or morning after pills; buying medicine from them would give them income that would help them in their line of work. You also cannot approve of a stressful society, since such societies, with certainty, lead to far more miscarriages than, for instance, a simple one based in nature. You cannot find food with pesticides acceptable, either, since pesticides must be bound to increase miscarriages. Getting pregnant if you're not perfectly young cannot be accepted, either, since that definitely would mean more miscarriages. Not eating perfectly healthy would be unacceptable, too. The list continues.

As for protonaut's question on what signifies murder, I avoid that term, since its meaning is the same as that of "kill." Additionally, the term can lead to irritation, anger or hate, in situations such as, for instance, the following: "Four soldiers were 'murdered' by a gerilla in Baghdad." ; "An Iraqi family was 'killed' when it tried to pass a roadblock."

By the way, Anastasia, you never answered my question on if you would value a seal-like creature, with the same intellect as humans, as much as a human.

Well, miscarriages and abortions are 2 totally different things. Except for your birth control reference (which I agree with, they do cause miscarriages), most miscarriages are caused simply because the woman's body is for some reason inhospitable to the fetus. They are natural and often necessary, indicating a severe underlying problem with either the mother or the fetus. A pregnant woman who eats healthy foods and takes care of her body will generally have no problem carrying a baby to term.

And look it up. Everything I stated is absolutely true regarding animal products used in everyday life.

A seal-like creature with equal intellect? Well, their lives would definitely become more valuable in my eyes, but to really equal human life I would have to believe that they had a soul.
 

me1

Well-Known Member
What I was getting at was that before birth, that fetus has the potential to be a productive human member of society if nature is allowed to take its course. Unnaturally terminating the fetus is destroying whatever potential that human might have had and this is wrong.

On the other hand, Hai-Gi was arguing that a living, breathing handicapped person is less valuable than swine, which is preposterous. Once you are born, you are a living breathing human being whose life is infinitely more valuable than than of a pig. But before you are born, your life is also extremely valuable because of the potential you represent for humanity among many other things of course.

And by simply observing animals we can see that the vast majority of them have nothing approaching the emotional and of course intellectual depth of human beings. Elephants and dogs may come close emotionally, but that's about it. Intellectually, it is no contest. Animals do not invent complex machines, they do not create art or literature and they do not pass along large bodies of knowledge to their offspring.

Animals have much emotional depth. Perhaps you have never really studied them as you have your pre-conceived views about them and do not wish to examine them for fear of unearthing evidence to the contrary?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=R8bMS22xQA8
http://www.amazon.com/When-Elephants-Weep-Emotional-Animals/dp/0385314280
 

Hae-Gi

Banned Member
In response to post #112 by Anastasia:

Yes, I guess they couldn't have a soul, since God created man in His image, and, since only man, in the image of God, can have a soul, something so distant in likeliness to man, cannot possibly have a soul.

As for looking those things up, I don't think I will bother doing that, since it is inconceivable that your list is realistic. If you, however, can provide me with believable sources, I will, eventually, take the time to read it, but the truth is of utmost likeliness that your list is highly exaggerated.
 

Esmeralda

Well-Known Member
Animals have much emotional depth. Perhaps you have never really studied them as you have your pre-conceived views about them and do not wish to examine them for fear of unearthing evidence to the contrary?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=R8bMS22xQA8
http://www.amazon.com/When-Elephants-Weep-Emotional-Animals/dp/0385314280
Believe me, I have studied animals a LOT. So far, I would say that elephants and dogs have the greatest emotional depth considering their ability to truly mourn the dead, which I think is a great indicator. Coco the gorilla is also an impressive example.
 

Esmeralda

Well-Known Member
In response to post #112 by Anastasia:

Yes, I guess they couldn't have a soul, since God created man in His image, and, since only man, in the image of God, can have a soul, something so distant in likeliness to man, cannot possibly have a soul.

As for looking those things up, I don't think I will bother doing that, since it is inconceivable that your list is realistic. If you, however, can provide me with believable sources, I will, eventually, take the time to read it, but the truth is of utmost likeliness that your list is highly exaggerated.
Here you go!

http://www.ofac.org/issues/animals_everyday.php
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Please Donate to Help Keep SF Running

Total amount
$70.00
Goal
$255.00
Top