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.
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.
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.