Animal Rights and Abortion

[OzzyKP]

I just want to say that there is a natural alliance between pro-lifers and animal rights folks. Not only are their tactics similar, but the ideology of each are similiar. I.E. stopping the killing of some non-rational creatures whose death we take for granted. Both of them try to sway people by making people look at pictures of mutilated animals or fetuses.

Except one is considered liberal and one is considered conservative. I think they should work together.

Another thing, a friend of mine is a vegitarian and big animal rights buff, while also very much pro-choice. This brings up some interesting hypocrisy.

For example when eating eggs she checks every one before eating, if there is the slightest red dot in the yoke she refuses to eat it. That red dot means the egg was fertilized and there is a tiny, tiny clump of cells that is a chicken embryo. That in her mind is now an animal and she refuses to eat it because of her vegitarianism. Killing animals is wrong.

However the exact same thing, if it were human she'd justify killing. Even if that tiny dot had developed for 6 months (and more) and was more decidedly personlike.

I wonder how often pro-choice vegitarians commit this obvious hypocrisy?

[Dauphin]

I.E. stopping the killing of some non-rational creatures whose death we take for granted

Animal rights is often to do with avoiding unnecessary pain on creatures. E.g Fox hunting, badger baiting, circus bears, pharmaceutical testing of animals etc....

[Rogan Josh]

I never really understood vegitarians. I don't see why a central nervous system is a cause of distinction. The animals killed in modern slaughterhouses are killed quite painlessly.

Fruitarians on the other hand seem to hold a consistent position.

[Patroklos]

troll....

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
I never really understood vegitarians. I don't see why a central nervous system is a cause of distinction. The animals killed in modern slaughterhouses are killed quite painlessly.

Fruitarians on the other hand seem to hold a consistent position.

You mean that there are people who only eat fruits to the exclusion of vegetables? Why? I'm failry certain that fruits are no more concious than vegetables.

[Rogan Josh]

The idea is that you should only eat parts of a plant that the plant 'intends' or 'wants' you to eat - like its fruit.

[Dauphin]

I think the point would be that fruits are designed to be eaten as part of their species reproductive process.

[The Mad Viking]

Why must people inflict their values on others???

If you don't want an abortion, don't get one.

Don't eat what you don't want to eat.

If I want your advice, I'll ask for it.

[Japher]

I think the animal should reserve the right to have an abortion. I mean, why should I tell the animal that it can or can't have an abortion? I am not even of the same species!!

It's kind of like being pro-life, for the death penalty, and wear alot of cosmetics...eh?

[Patroklos]

Bya vegetarians standards, wouldn't eating fruit be equivalent to eating aborted fetuses?

[Spiffor]

Fruitarianism is like eating PLACENTA!

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
I wonder how often pro-choice vegitarians commit this obvious hypocrisy?

I have never met any pro-animal matching the description of your friend. Whether vegans or vegetarians, they oppose the useless suffering of animals or the exploitation of animals at all. Even those who refuse to eat eggs do so because of the hen that has laid it, and not because of the potential chick inside.

As for modern slaughterhouses being painless... well... When you see most animals crapping with fear before getting slaughtered, and when you see some of them even die of heart attack during the transit, you can just imagine how humane modern methods are

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
I never really understood vegitarians. I don't see why a central nervous system is a cause of distinction. The animals killed in modern slaughterhouses are killed quite painlessly.

Fruitarians on the other hand seem to hold a consistent position.

Personally, I never understood people's hang-up on Cannibalism. I mean, meat's meat, guy.



As to the topic: Sounds like she does that with the eggs as a sort of gimick to keep her distracted from the fact that eggs in general don't really make alot of sense from the ussual vegetarian's perspective.


EDIT: And yes, modern slaughter houses aren't painless. Niether is the trip there, or the animal's life at the barn, or even it's birth.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Personally, I never understood people's hang-up on Cannibalism.

Neither have I, really .

Well, except for the fact that you have to kill the humans... can't eat one who has died of natural causes really.

[Caligastia]

Well I'm pro-choice and don't usually agree with animal rights groups, so at least I'm consistent.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

Personally, I never understood people's hang-up on Cannibalism.

Neither have I, really .

Well, except for the fact that you have to kill the humans... can't eat one who has died of natural causes really.

Bus accidents can be delicious...

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
The idea is that you should only eat parts of a plant that the plant 'intends' or 'wants' you to eat - like its fruit.

If that's true, then in accordance with the "intent" shown by the plant you should also take your craps in the great wide open to spread the kind plant's seeds - because that's what it "wants".

[Ben Kenobi]

Except one is considered liberal and one is considered conservative. I think they should work together.

Not the first to think of this. The real reason one is conservative, and the other liberal is because of the different attitudes about human beings. Liberals do not view people as having intrinsic value, but rather, constructed value. Conservatives believe the opposite.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Liberals do not view people as having intrinsic value, but rather, constructed value. Conservatives believe the opposite.

Incorrect. Some Liberals do believe people have intrinsic value... it just doesn't come from God. Liberals such as Dworkin have worked that out.

[Ben Kenobi]

Liberals such as Dworkin have worked that out.

Well, then either post a link, or send me a PM if you don't feel people will read the article.

[Imran Siddiqui]

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...books&n=507846

It's part of a book: Taking Rights Seriously

[General Ludd]

How can you say that the 'bleeding hearts' don't believe humans to have any intrinsic value?

[Ben Kenobi]

How can you say that the 'bleeding hearts' don't believe humans to have any intrinsic value?

From the abortion debate.

They frame the debate in saying society has the right to confer personhood on whom they deem to be persons or not.

Conservatives see rights as existing from outside society, and that society merely recognises, rather than confers these rights.

[Ben Kenobi]

Imran:

I'm a poor student, so I can't just pick up a book. I will look out for the book in the library by looking at the ISDN number.

I just have one question.

If Dworkin believes in intrinsic rights, where does he believe these rights originate from?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Whether vegans or vegetarians, they oppose the useless suffering of animals or the exploitation of animals at all.

Hold whatever opinion you want (and even if it is wrong, and in this case it is). But just don't tell others what to eat because of "supposed suffering of animals". I mean we raise these things to eat. We being doing this for centuries ever since the dawn of civilization and farming. And not some hippie vegan nutcase is going to change that.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


From the abortion debate.

They frame the debate in saying society has the right to confer personhood on whom they deem to be persons or not.

Conservatives see rights as existing from outside society, and that society merely recognises, rather than confers these rights.

I think you're putting words in their mouths.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
Hold whatever opinion you want (and even if it is wrong, and in this case it is). But just don't tell others what to eat because of "supposed suffering of animals". I mean we raise these things to eat. We being doing this for centuries ever since the dawn of civilization and farming. And not some hippie vegan nutcase is going to change that.

Other things since the dawn of civilization include slavery, genocide, gay bashing, racism, and militarism.

None of these things are good, ergo the length of time we've been doing something is irrelevant to its moral nature.

[Giancarlo]

Templar, that's stupid. This is food we are talking about. And you have no right to tell me what to eat or not.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Another thing, a friend of mine is a vegitarian and big animal rights buff, while also very much pro-choice. This brings up some interesting hypocrisy.

You think there is some sort of hypocrisy involved because somehow you think that the reasons behind the stances on animal rights issue and abortion issue must be unified. According to you, only one rationale is allowed to explain their positions on both issues.

Since this is a silly idea, I don't see where the hypocrisy is.

[VJ]

Bya vegetarians standards, wouldn't eating fruit be equivalent to eating aborted fetuses?

And what's wrong with that?