Vegans...

[Vagos]

Something I've been wondering lately, as I know/have met an increasingly number of people who are or have become vegans. Or even just vegetarians who are strongly against the killing of animals in way, shape or form. I have no problem with these people's moral compass. So long as they're not forcing anything on anyone else, the personal moral code of not wanting to kill animals seems like a noble one.

The thing I'm wondering is that how come 9 times out of 10, this doesn't transfer over to abortion? If killing a sewer rat is considered to be immoral by these people, surely killing a human fetus is as well? Again, this person doesn't have to force a pro-life view on other people, I'm just referring to personal morality. How can someone be a vegan who finds it morally reprehensible to kill animals of any kind, but on the same token have no moral qualms whatsoever with abortion?

And sorry if this was already a thread, I don't visit SMP very often.

[vhawk01]

I don't really see how the two are related. Are you trying to make the argument that a fetus is more 'sentient' or capable of suffering than a pig? Probably not the case.

There are several different arguments to be made with regards to abortion. Only a very limited number of them (and really, I don't know anyone who really espouses these) would fit into your paradigm here. I think abortion is accept for at least two reasons, and one of them is the Thomson thought experiment. This primarily covers pregnancies that were the result of rape, but either way, it has nothing to do with whether the fetus is alive or not.

Think about it, do these vegans and vegetarians think it is immoral to kill ANY living thing? Like flies and plants and grass? Or just living things that have a certain amount of self-awareness and capability to suffer?

[Vagos]

[ QUOTE ]
There are several different arguments to be made with regards to abortion. Only a very limited number of them (and really, I don't know anyone who really espouses these) would fit into your paradigm here. I think abortion is accept for at least two reasons, and one of them is the Thomson thought experiment. This primarily covers pregnancies that were the result of rape, but either way, it has nothing to do with whether the fetus is alive or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, so for most people, abortion doesn't come down to whether or not the fetus is alive? It's just about the "whether or not it can feel pain" argument? I gotta say, if that's what most people think about when considering abortion, that is wild. It's ok to kill a human so long as it doesn't know (or feel) it's being killed?

I don't know, perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but I always thought the debate about "when life begins" was a huge part of the abortion debate.

[ QUOTE ]
Think about it, do these vegans and vegetarians think it is immoral to kill ANY living thing? Like flies and plants and grass? Or just living things that have a certain amount of self-awareness and capability to suffer?

[/ QUOTE ]

So under that rationale, it's ok to kill a coma victim, even if they have, say, an 80% shot of coming out of the coma in 9 months (as a fetus has of being born into a human that can think, feel pain, etc)

[Dan.]

[ QUOTE ]

Wait, so for most people, abortion doesn't come down to whether or not the fetus is alive? It's just about the "whether or not it can feel pain" argument?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't want to speak for most people, but as a vegan and a pro-choicer I feel directly related to the topic. For me, abortion is nothing about whether or not the fetus is alive and entirely about whether or not the woman has rights and control over her body. And in my case, I feel that when the rights of an existing person conflict with those of a potential person the existing person's rights ought to triumph.

[New001]

I'm a vegetarian, I don't kill animals (I even escort bugs out of the house when I find them), and if I happened to be a woman I don't know if I'd ever be able to do an abortion. Still, I think they should be allowed.

Though, there's no connection between killing animals for food or sport and abortions.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are several different arguments to be made with regards to abortion. Only a very limited number of them (and really, I don't know anyone who really espouses these) would fit into your paradigm here. I think abortion is accept for at least two reasons, and one of them is the Thomson thought experiment. This primarily covers pregnancies that were the result of rape, but either way, it has nothing to do with whether the fetus is alive or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, so for most people, abortion doesn't come down to whether or not the fetus is alive? It's just about the "whether or not it can feel pain" argument? I gotta say, if that's what most people think about when considering abortion, that is wild. It's ok to kill a human so long as it doesn't know (or feel) it's being killed?

I don't know, perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but I always thought the debate about "when life begins" was a huge part of the abortion debate.

[ QUOTE ]
Think about it, do these vegans and vegetarians think it is immoral to kill ANY living thing? Like flies and plants and grass? Or just living things that have a certain amount of self-awareness and capability to suffer?

[/ QUOTE ]

So under that rationale, it's ok to kill a coma victim, even if they have, say, an 80% shot of coming out of the coma in 9 months (as a fetus has of being born into a human that can think, feel pain, etc)

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that there isn't anyone in the world who wouldn't agree that a fetus is alive. Of course its alive. I'll wait for you to clarify some terms before we continue this, as we often have semantical problems that stall out discussion.

[Vagos]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Wait, so for most people, abortion doesn't come down to whether or not the fetus is alive? It's just about the "whether or not it can feel pain" argument?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't want to speak for most people, but as a vegan and a pro-choicer I feel directly related to the topic. For me, abortion is nothing about whether or not the fetus is alive and entirely about whether or not the woman has rights and control over her body. And in my case, I feel that when the rights of an existing person conflict with those of a potential person the existing person's rights ought to triumph.

[/ QUOTE ]
Generally, this is how I feel. I would never interfere with a woman's right to get an abortion. I see this as pretty much the same way I don't think you (as a vegan) would interfere with my right to eat meat. It's about personal moral beliefs, that you live by or think about yourself, but don't impose on other people.

You're a vegan but you support a woman's right to choose, that's fine. Just like you support my right to eat meat. But do you have the same personal feelings or moral issues with someone who eats/produces/slaughters meat as you do with someone who gets/performs an abortion?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Wait, so for most people, abortion doesn't come down to whether or not the fetus is alive? It's just about the "whether or not it can feel pain" argument?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't want to speak for most people, but as a vegan and a pro-choicer I feel directly related to the topic. For me, abortion is nothing about whether or not the fetus is alive and entirely about whether or not the woman has rights and control over her body. And in my case, I feel that when the rights of an existing person conflict with those of a potential person the existing person's rights ought to triumph.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is sort of a version of the Thomson argument. She would say (as would I) that its not so much a question of potential person versus actual person so much as it is actual person who is obligating verus actual person who is under no obligation.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Wait, so for most people, abortion doesn't come down to whether or not the fetus is alive? It's just about the "whether or not it can feel pain" argument?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't want to speak for most people, but as a vegan and a pro-choicer I feel directly related to the topic. For me, abortion is nothing about whether or not the fetus is alive and entirely about whether or not the woman has rights and control over her body. And in my case, I feel that when the rights of an existing person conflict with those of a potential person the existing person's rights ought to triumph.

[/ QUOTE ]
Generally, this is how I feel. I would never interfere with a woman's right to get an abortion. I see this as pretty much the same way I don't think you (as a vegan) would interfere with my right to eat meat. It's about personal moral beliefs, that you live by or think about yourself, but don't impose on other people.

You're a vegan but you support a woman's right to choose, that's fine. Just like you support my right to eat meat. But do you have the same personal feelings or moral issues with someone who eats/produces/slaughters meat as you do with someone who gets/performs an abortion?

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont think thats what he means, but maybe. What I think he is saying is that, while he supports your freedom to eat meat, he only does that as a 'lesser of two evils' thing. You eating meat is still 'wrong,' its just not as wrong as him infringing on your rights. But abortion isn't wrong.

At least, thats how I would see it if I were a vegan.

[Vagos]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that there isn't anyone in the world who wouldn't agree that a fetus is alive. Of course its alive. I'll wait for you to clarify some terms before we continue this, as we often have semantical problems that stall out discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that it is alive. I just always hear in abortion debates this whole thing about "when life begins." If something is alive, surely it's life has begun?

[Vagos]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont think thats what he means, but maybe. What I think he is saying is that, while he supports your freedom to eat meat, he only does that as a 'lesser of two evils' thing. You eating meat is still 'wrong,' its just not as wrong as him infringing on your rights. But abortion isn't wrong.

At least, thats how I would see it if I were a vegan.

[/ QUOTE ]

See, that's what I'm wondering. Dan, do you agree with this above statement, or would you consider abortion to be a kind of "the lesser of two evils", with infringing on a woman's rights being worse than the abortion itself.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that there isn't anyone in the world who wouldn't agree that a fetus is alive. Of course its alive. I'll wait for you to clarify some terms before we continue this, as we often have semantical problems that stall out discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that it is alive. I just always hear in abortion debates this whole thing about "when life begins." If something is alive, surely it's life has begun?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I'm going to guess that that is just meaningless propaganda repeated ad nauseum MOSTLY by the pro-lifers but by the demagogues on both sides. If we can frame it as a 'life or death' issue, then the emotionally charged ground is won by the 'life' people. We see the same thing when talking about end-of-life issues like euthanasia, where procedures are called 'life-saving' rather than life-extending or death-delaying. Lives aren't saved, but it serves some better to think of it in life vs. death terms. Who could be in favor of DEATH!?!?

The issue with abortion is more person vs. non-person, not life versus non-life. Lots and lots of things are alive. Cats. Cucumbers. Hair. Skin. We don't care about any of these things.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I dont think thats what he means, but maybe. What I think he is saying is that, while he supports your freedom to eat meat, he only does that as a 'lesser of two evils' thing. You eating meat is still 'wrong,' its just not as wrong as him infringing on your rights. But abortion isn't wrong.

At least, thats how I would see it if I were a vegan.

[/ QUOTE ]

See, that's what I'm wondering. Dan, do you agree with this above statement, or would you consider abortion to be a kind of "the lesser of two evils", with infringing on a woman's rights being worse than the abortion itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its tricky, because I think I'm not being exactly clear what I mean here. Abortion isn't wrong, because we should all be free to accept or reject any obligations placed on us by others against our will. Removing a fetus and letting die is sad, but it isn't wrong. Just like shooting someone and killing them to defend myself is sad, but it isn't wrong. (Please note I am NOT comparing abortion to self-defense, simply trying to show how something can be sad but still not wrong). I would think that, as a vegan, I would see meat-eaters as WRONG, not just sad. It would just be a wrong that I could not think of a good way of righting that wouldn't be even worse. So I would still tell you that what you are doing is wrong, when you eat meat. I wouldn't say the same to the woman looking for an abortion. I wouldn't want to force EITHER of you, though.

[Vagos]

[ QUOTE ]
Its tricky, because I think I'm not being exactly clear what I mean here. Abortion isn't wrong, because we should all be free to accept or reject any obligations placed on us by others against our will . Removing a fetus and letting die is sad, but it isn't wrong. Just like shooting someone and killing them to defend myself is sad, but it isn't wrong. (Please note I am NOT comparing abortion to self-defense, simply trying to show how something can be sad but still not wrong). I would think that, as a vegan, I would see meat-eaters as WRONG, not just sad. It would just be a wrong that I could not think of a good way of righting that wouldn't be even worse. So I would still tell you that what you are doing is wrong, when you eat meat. I wouldn't say the same to the woman looking for an abortion. I wouldn't want to force EITHER of you, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hang on though, a VERY LARGE majority of abortions, are cases where the woman has not been subjected to such against her will(i.e. some kind of rape/incest case). In the eyes of a vegan, is the woman who sleeps around all the time and gets abortions just as morally reprehensible as someone who goes out hunting every month and eating hamburgers every single day?

[New001]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Its tricky, because I think I'm not being exactly clear what I mean here. Abortion isn't wrong, because we should all be free to accept or reject any obligations placed on us by others against our will . Removing a fetus and letting die is sad, but it isn't wrong. Just like shooting someone and killing them to defend myself is sad, but it isn't wrong. (Please note I am NOT comparing abortion to self-defense, simply trying to show how something can be sad but still not wrong). I would think that, as a vegan, I would see meat-eaters as WRONG, not just sad. It would just be a wrong that I could not think of a good way of righting that wouldn't be even worse. So I would still tell you that what you are doing is wrong, when you eat meat. I wouldn't say the same to the woman looking for an abortion. I wouldn't want to force EITHER of you, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hang on though, a VERY LARGE majority of abortions, are cases where the woman has not been subjected to such against her will(i.e. some kind of rape/incest case). In the eyes of a vegan, is the woman who sleeps around all the time and gets abortions just as morally reprehensible as someone who goes out hunting every month and eating hamburgers every single day?

[/ QUOTE ]
The fetus places an obligation on the woman. In the case of a woman wanting an abortion, that obligation is placed there against her will. Yes, she consented to having sex and a pregnancy is a very possible outcome of that, but the fetus is definitely imposing itself on her against her will.

[Dan.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I dont think thats what he means, but maybe. What I think he is saying is that, while he supports your freedom to eat meat, he only does that as a 'lesser of two evils' thing. You eating meat is still 'wrong,' its just not as wrong as him infringing on your rights. But abortion isn't wrong.

At least, thats how I would see it if I were a vegan.

[/ QUOTE ]

See, that's what I'm wondering. Dan, do you agree with this above statement, or would you consider abortion to be a kind of "the lesser of two evils", with infringing on a woman's rights being worse than the abortion itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, it's a "lesser of evils" thing for me. Anyone who says there's absolutely nothing wrong with abortion is lying to themselves, imo. There are cells dividing, and you're stopping it. That's killing some sort of a life--human or otherwise. But far be it from me to impugn someone from deciding what she should do with her body.

Similarly with being a vegan. I don't agree with killing animals for food, and I may try to educate people around me as to why I feel that way. But I'll never grab the burger out of your hand or spray-paint your fur coat.

Basically, I'm a staunch believer in individual autonomy, so long as what you're doing doesn't affect me.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Its tricky, because I think I'm not being exactly clear what I mean here. Abortion isn't wrong, because we should all be free to accept or reject any obligations placed on us by others against our will . Removing a fetus and letting die is sad, but it isn't wrong. Just like shooting someone and killing them to defend myself is sad, but it isn't wrong. (Please note I am NOT comparing abortion to self-defense, simply trying to show how something can be sad but still not wrong). I would think that, as a vegan, I would see meat-eaters as WRONG, not just sad. It would just be a wrong that I could not think of a good way of righting that wouldn't be even worse. So I would still tell you that what you are doing is wrong, when you eat meat. I wouldn't say the same to the woman looking for an abortion. I wouldn't want to force EITHER of you, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hang on though, a VERY LARGE majority of abortions, are cases where the woman has not been subjected to such against her will(i.e. some kind of rape/incest case). In the eyes of a vegan, is the woman who sleeps around all the time and gets abortions just as morally reprehensible as someone who goes out hunting every month and eating hamburgers every single day?

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this, but that is for another thread(or like 4 or 5 recent ones). I think that most abortions fit this description. Its not really the point here.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I dont think thats what he means, but maybe. What I think he is saying is that, while he supports your freedom to eat meat, he only does that as a 'lesser of two evils' thing. You eating meat is still 'wrong,' its just not as wrong as him infringing on your rights. But abortion isn't wrong.

At least, thats how I would see it if I were a vegan.

[/ QUOTE ]

See, that's what I'm wondering. Dan, do you agree with this above statement, or would you consider abortion to be a kind of "the lesser of two evils", with infringing on a woman's rights being worse than the abortion itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, it's a "lesser of evils" thing for me. Anyone who says there's absolutely nothing wrong with abortion is lying to themselves, imo. There are cells dividing, and you're stopping it. That's killing some sort of a life--human or otherwise. But far be it from me to impugn someone from deciding what she should do with her body.

Similarly with being a vegan. I don't agree with killing animals for food, and I may try to educate people around me as to why I feel that way. But I'll never grab the burger out of your hand or spray-paint your fur coat.

Basically, I'm a staunch believer in individual autonomy, so long as what you're doing doesn't affect me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lets be as clear as we can about things, and not misuse terminology. Are you opposed to me pulling weeds in my garden? Harvesting corn and wheat? All of those are composed of cells that are dividing. We are terminating life in all those cases. You would say "Anyone who thinks there is nothing wrong with farming is deluding themselves?"

[Vagos]

[ QUOTE ]
Right, it's a "lesser of evils" thing for me. Anyone who says there's absolutely nothing wrong with abortion is lying to themselves, imo. There are cells dividing, and you're stopping it. That's killing some sort of a life--human or otherwise. But far be it from me to impugn someone from deciding what she should do with her body.

Similarly with being a vegan. I don't agree with killing animals for food, and I may try to educate people around me as to why I feel that way. But I'll never grab the burger out of your hand or spray-paint your fur coat.

Basically, I'm a staunch believer in individual autonomy, so long as what you're doing doesn't affect me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, that makes perfect sense to me. I guess I've just been speaking with some other vegans lately who just have no moral qualms with abortion whatsoever and it seems (to me anyways) more the standard than the exception. But perhaps it is more divided than I thought.

[Dan.]

[ QUOTE ]

Lets be as clear as we can about things, and not misuse terminology. Are you opposed to me pulling weeds in my garden? Harvesting corn and wheat? All of those are composed of cells that are dividing. We are terminating life in all those cases. You would say "Anyone who thinks there is nothing wrong with farming is deluding themselves?"

[/ QUOTE ]

In theory? Yes. And some Fruitarians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruitarians) may agree in practice, eating only fruit that has fallen from the plant. But in my life, there's obviously lines that must be drawn as far as acceptability of destroying life. And destroying plant life in order that I might eat is acceptable.

[Vagos]

[ QUOTE ]
Lets be as clear as we can about things, and not misuse terminology. Are you opposed to me pulling weeds in my garden? Harvesting corn and wheat? All of those are composed of cells that are dividing. We are terminating life in all those cases. You would say "Anyone who thinks there is nothing wrong with farming is deluding themselves?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, it seems to me that the vegans I've spoken to like to think of abortion as somehow the equivalent of killing a worm or a mosquito, which is a true head-scratcher to me. Again, I don't want to get into a huge abortion thing, I'm just questioning that if vegans adhere to a person moral belief that preservation/protection of life is important, that this belief should cause some serious conflict with the abortion issue. Even if it's some kind of sliding scale, I would think a human fetus is still pretty high up on the chain...not down with mosquitos and worms.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Lets be as clear as we can about things, and not misuse terminology. Are you opposed to me pulling weeds in my garden? Harvesting corn and wheat? All of those are composed of cells that are dividing. We are terminating life in all those cases. You would say "Anyone who thinks there is nothing wrong with farming is deluding themselves?"

[/ QUOTE ]

In theory? Yes. And some Fruitarians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruitarians) may agree in practice, eating only fruit that has fallen from the plant. But in my life, there's obviously lines that must be drawn as far as acceptability of destroying life. And destroying plant life in order that I might eat is acceptable.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why such a reverence for life? or do you see a problem with destroying the wrapper on a bar of chocolate as well?

What's so special about a cucumber?

chez

[RoundGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
And destroying plant life in order that I might eat is acceptable.

[/ QUOTE ]
And the difference between plant life and a chicken is....

And please don't say "a brain". I've dealt with chickens, I know better.

[Dan.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And destroying plant life in order that I might eat is acceptable.

[/ QUOTE ]
And the difference between plant life and a chicken is....

And please don't say "a brain". I've dealt with chickens, I know better.

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably a similar difference that you find between a cow and a human. (Assuming you eat cows and do not eat humans)

[Dan.]

[ QUOTE ]

Why such a reverence for life? or do you see a problem with destroying the wrapper on a bar of chocolate as well?

What's so special about a cucumber?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrapper? No. I have little attachment to it. But, in general, who am I to destroy life? I'm made of the same things they are; we're all part of the same world. And if I can live fine causing minimal disturbance among the lives of others (animals/plants included), I feel as though I should. No need, imo, to needlessly disrupt things.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
You're a vegan but you support a woman's right to choose, that's fine. Just like you support my right to eat meat. But do you have the same personal feelings or moral issues with someone who eats/produces/slaughters meat as you do with someone who gets/performs an abortion?

[/ QUOTE ]
Both are distasteful practices. One kills one lifeform (not yet conscious or feeling) in order to spare a woman from months of carrying it and a possibly 18 years of caring for it.

The other breeds and kills multiple feeling organisms on a regular basis solely because of habit and mild pleasure.

It's a question of scale. And that's without getting into the issue of raising animals just to kill them. As an analogy, people would be more against "fetus farms", where women grow fetuses to a couple of months and then abort them for medical research. Under your reckoning provided in OP, fetus farms and regular abortions would be equivalent. But they're clearly not.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Why such a reverence for life? or do you see a problem with destroying the wrapper on a bar of chocolate as well?

What's so special about a cucumber?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrapper? No. I have little attachment to it. But, in general, who am I to destroy life? I'm made of the same things they are; we're all part of the same world. And if I can live fine causing minimal disturbance among the lives of others (animals/plants included), I feel as though I should. No need, imo, to needlessly disrupt things.

[/ QUOTE ]
Fine if that's your personal issue but you can't just insist that its based on anything real and so applies to anybody else. Personally, I couldn't care less about killing a cucumber.

chez

[surftheiop]

how can abortion not be a life or death issue?

A fetus will either be allowed to continue being alive or forced to die.

I dont think you can disagree with that statement

[Dan.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Why such a reverence for life? or do you see a problem with destroying the wrapper on a bar of chocolate as well?

What's so special about a cucumber?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrapper? No. I have little attachment to it. But, in general, who am I to destroy life? I'm made of the same things they are; we're all part of the same world. And if I can live fine causing minimal disturbance among the lives of others (animals/plants included), I feel as though I should. No need, imo, to needlessly disrupt things.

[/ QUOTE ]
Fine if that's your personal issue but you can't just insist that its based on anything real and so applies to anybody else. Personally, I couldn't care less about killing a cucumber.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

That's fine. I'm sure you read my other posts where I suggested that I would respect your autonomy and not physically stop you from eating your cucumber.

[Vagos]

[ QUOTE ]
It's a question of scale. And that's without getting into the issue of raising animals just to kill them. As an analogy, people would be more against "fetus farms", where women grow fetuses to a couple of months and then abort them for medical research. Under your reckoning provided in OP, fetus farms and regular abortions would be equivalent. But they're clearly not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I suspect this has a lot to do with the fact that people think preservation of human life (in any stage) is more important than preservation of animal life (even if both are regarded as important practices). You're equating human life and animal life on the same exact place on the scale, which most people will disagree with.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Why such a reverence for life? or do you see a problem with destroying the wrapper on a bar of chocolate as well?

What's so special about a cucumber?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrapper? No. I have little attachment to it. But, in general, who am I to destroy life? I'm made of the same things they are; we're all part of the same world. And if I can live fine causing minimal disturbance among the lives of others (animals/plants included), I feel as though I should. No need, imo, to needlessly disrupt things.

[/ QUOTE ]
Fine if that's your personal issue but you can't just insist that its based on anything real and so applies to anybody else. Personally, I couldn't care less about killing a cucumber.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

That's fine. I'm sure you read my other posts where I suggested that I would respect your autonomy and not physically stop you from eating your cucumber.

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay I got the impression from your previous posts that you were saying I'd have to be lying to myself to deny there's anything wrong with killing a cucumber.

Sorry if that's not what you meant but if it is I'm hoping you will provide some basis for your claim.

chez

[RoundGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And destroying plant life in order that I might eat is acceptable.

[/ QUOTE ]
And the difference between plant life and a chicken is....

And please don't say "a brain". I've dealt with chickens, I know better.

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably a similar difference that you find between a cow and a human. (Assuming you eat cows and do not eat humans)

[/ QUOTE ]
C'mon Dan, now you're just posting without thinking. One is cannibalism, and the other isn't. Care to try again? What is the difference between plant "life" and animal "life"?

[Dan.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And destroying plant life in order that I might eat is acceptable.

[/ QUOTE ]
And the difference between plant life and a chicken is....

And please don't say "a brain". I've dealt with chickens, I know better.

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably a similar difference that you find between a cow and a human. (Assuming you eat cows and do not eat humans)

[/ QUOTE ]
C'mon Dan, now you're just posting without thinking. One is cannibalism, and the other isn't. Care to try again? What is the difference between plant "life" and animal "life"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is eating humans wrong but eating cows okay? I understand that one is cannibalism. Why is that wrong?

[Borodog]

Short answer: Dirty hippies love animals and hate people.

[Vagos]

[ QUOTE ]
Short answer: Dirty hippies love animals and hate people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha, reminds me of the South Park episode where they rag on PETA.

[RoundGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And destroying plant life in order that I might eat is acceptable.

[/ QUOTE ]
And the difference between plant life and a chicken is....

And please don't say "a brain". I've dealt with chickens, I know better.

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably a similar difference that you find between a cow and a human. (Assuming you eat cows and do not eat humans)

[/ QUOTE ]
C'mon Dan, now you're just posting without thinking. One is cannibalism, and the other isn't. Care to try again? What is the difference between plant "life" and animal "life"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is eating humans wrong but eating cows okay? I understand that one is cannibalism. Why is that wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]
Cannibalism is rare (wrong?) among most species, humans included. Eating other animals for food is certainly not rare (wrong?) among the species. By the way, that's another reason chickens are [censored] stupid creatures.

Vegans are fine upstanding citizens in my book (unless they're dirty hippies), it's a choice they've made. There is no right or wrong about what our species eats, in my opinion (short of cannibalism, of course).

[Dan.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And destroying plant life in order that I might eat is acceptable.

[/ QUOTE ]
And the difference between plant life and a chicken is....

And please don't say "a brain". I've dealt with chickens, I know better.

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably a similar difference that you find between a cow and a human. (Assuming you eat cows and do not eat humans)

[/ QUOTE ]
C'mon Dan, now you're just posting without thinking. One is cannibalism, and the other isn't. Care to try again? What is the difference between plant "life" and animal "life"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is eating humans wrong but eating cows okay? I understand that one is cannibalism. Why is that wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]
Cannibalism is rare (wrong?) among most species, humans included. Eating other animals for food is certainly not rare (wrong?) among the species. By the way, that's another reason chickens are [censored] stupid creatures.

Vegans are fine upstanding citizens in my book (unless they're dirty hippies), it's a choice they've made. There is no right or wrong about what our species eats, in my opinion (short of cannibalism, of course).

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. I think having flesh makes an animal too much like myself to eat it; whereas plant life is different enough (low enough in the chain) that I justify it.

[lucksack]

A plant doesn't have brains so it doesn't have consciousness.

There is this thing called "specism" (like racism...) that makes most people emotionally undervalue other species, while vegans generally try to value different kinds of human beings (fetus, babies...) and other species based on rational thinking instead of acting based on their emotions.

So probably a fetus may be as valuable as a worm from a rational standpoint (don't know about either one much myself though so can't compare).

[Vagos]

[ QUOTE ]
A plant doesn't have brains so it doesn't have consciousness.

There is this thing called "specism" (like racism...) that makes most people emotionally undervalue other species, while vegans generally try to value different kinds of human beings (fetus, babies...) and other species based on rational thinking instead of acting based on their emotions.

So probably a fetus may be as valuable as a worm from a rational standpoint (don't know about either one much myself though so can't compare).

[/ QUOTE ]

So to stay rational, a coma victim or mentally retarded person should also be "valued" less right? Sorry, I just don't buy this argument and find it borderline troubling.

[RoundGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
A plant doesn't have brains so it doesn't have consciousness.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you would be so kind:

What do you mean by "consciousness"?
How do you know that plants do not have consciousness?
Does the effectiveness of the "brain" in the animal affect your thinking? (I'm going back to my stupid chickens again)

[lucksack]

[ QUOTE ]

So to stay rational, a coma victim or mentally retarded person should also be "valued" less right? Sorry, I just don't buy this argument and find it borderline troubling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, what's the problem with valuing a coma victim or severely mentally retarded people less? I don't really see it.

[kerowo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So to stay rational, a coma victim or mentally retarded person should also be "valued" less right? Sorry, I just don't buy this argument and find it borderline troubling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, what's the problem with valuing a coma victim or severely mentally retarded people less? I don't really see it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Be related to one.

[lucksack]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A plant doesn't have brains so it doesn't have consciousness.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you would be so kind:

What do you mean by "consciousness"?
How do you know that plants do not have consciousness?
Does the effectiveness of the "brain" in the animal affect your thinking? (I'm going back to my stupid chickens again)

[/ QUOTE ]

From Wikipedia: Consciousness is a characteristic of the mind generally regarded to comprise qualities such as subjectivity, self-awareness, sentience, sapience, and the ability to perceive the relationship.

I thought it's pretty certain plants can't have consciousness, I might be wrong though, is it not?

From what I read sometime ago when here was a thread about veganism, the differences in some brain functionality (like feeling pain etc.) etc. might, according to some newer research, be much smaller than previously thought, even between like humans and fish. And chickens are probably more advanced than fish.. I'm definitely not saying people would be worth as little as fish, but I'm saying that it would be hard to argue rationally that fish life has practically zero value if human life has value.

[lucksack]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Yes, what's the problem with valuing a coma victim or severely mentally retarded people less? I don't really see it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Be related to one.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure my emotions would try to tell me they are as valuable, but when I'd think about it, I'd see it doesn't make any sense. Same thing as valuing a pet dog/cat more than a random pig I'm eating. Also the same thing as when I see a few white people or a few black people somewhere, I would probably first like the white people more, before realizing it's just racism to not like the black ones.

[m_the0ry]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, what's the problem with valuing a coma victim or severely mentally retarded people less? I don't really see it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Be related to one.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is normal to value your friends and family above others. It is unreasonable to expect others to value your friends or family above their own. If we accept a loosely democratic model as the only reasonable one for decision making when the outcome effects everyone, 'this person is my relative' is a moot point. This is a naive view of how we value human life in high stakes situations - and any situation in which we are forced to assign value to a human life is certainly high stakes.

[RoundGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What do you mean by "consciousness"?


[/ QUOTE ]

From Wikipedia: Consciousness is a characteristic of the mind generally regarded to comprise qualities such as subjectivity, self-awareness, sentience, sapience, and the ability to perceive the relationship.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is what I assumed your definition was, generally. So, exactly what part of this definition do you think applies to a fish?

[ QUOTE ]
but I'm saying that it would be hard to argue rationally that fish life has practically zero value if human life has value.

[/ QUOTE ]
What is it about a fish that gives it's life value, when compared to a human?

[Vagos]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So to stay rational, a coma victim or mentally retarded person should also be "valued" less right? Sorry, I just don't buy this argument and find it borderline troubling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, what's the problem with valuing a coma victim or severely mentally retarded people less? I don't really see it.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, if a mentally retarded person is murdered, do you believe the murderer should be punished less?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And destroying plant life in order that I might eat is acceptable.

[/ QUOTE ]
And the difference between plant life and a chicken is....

And please don't say "a brain". I've dealt with chickens, I know better.

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably a similar difference that you find between a cow and a human. (Assuming you eat cows and do not eat humans)

[/ QUOTE ]
C'mon Dan, now you're just posting without thinking. One is cannibalism, and the other isn't. Care to try again? What is the difference between plant "life" and animal "life"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is eating humans wrong but eating cows okay? I understand that one is cannibalism. Why is that wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]
Cannibalism is rare (wrong?) among most species, humans included. Eating other animals for food is certainly not rare (wrong?) among the species. By the way, that's another reason chickens are [censored] stupid creatures.

Vegans are fine upstanding citizens in my book (unless they're dirty hippies), it's a choice they've made. There is no right or wrong about what our species eats, in my opinion (short of cannibalism, of course).

[/ QUOTE ]

This sounds dangerously close to a natural law argument. Surely it isn't, though, right?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
how can abortion not be a life or death issue?

A fetus will either be allowed to continue being alive or forced to die.

I dont think you can disagree with that statement

[/ QUOTE ]

Its a ridiculously dishonest way of putting it. Scratching my back is then a life or death issue. Your response to this post will demonstrate exactly WHY this is a dishonest tactic. You will take care to add in a whole bunch of new definitions and assumptions to make it clear that a fetus is different from some hair or skin on my back. And NONE of those definitions are included in the dishonest "life or death" phrasing.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Lets be as clear as we can about things, and not misuse terminology. Are you opposed to me pulling weeds in my garden? Harvesting corn and wheat? All of those are composed of cells that are dividing. We are terminating life in all those cases. You would say "Anyone who thinks there is nothing wrong with farming is deluding themselves?"

[/ QUOTE ]

In theory? Yes. And some Fruitarians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruitarians) may agree in practice, eating only fruit that has fallen from the plant. But in my life, there's obviously lines that must be drawn as far as acceptability of destroying life. And destroying plant life in order that I might eat is acceptable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perfectly fine. I agree that there must be lines drawn, and that they are pretty much arbitrary. I draw them above cows and below chimps. You draw them above plants and below cows, but not below animals probably, as I'm sure you've killed flies. I don't begrudge you your arbitrary line. I DO begrudge you the use of "life is sacred" and "we must protect life" and other pithy but dishonest phrases. Say what you mean, not what you think will score you emotional points. We must not protect life, we must protect life above some arbitrary line. And then take some care to explain why you draw your line where you do.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So to stay rational, a coma victim or mentally retarded person should also be "valued" less right? Sorry, I just don't buy this argument and find it borderline troubling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, what's the problem with valuing a coma victim or severely mentally retarded people less? I don't really see it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Be related to one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, and if my parents were killed by a couple black guys, would it make my racist arguments more reasonable and correct?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So to stay rational, a coma victim or mentally retarded person should also be "valued" less right? Sorry, I just don't buy this argument and find it borderline troubling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, what's the problem with valuing a coma victim or severely mentally retarded people less? I don't really see it.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, if a mentally retarded person is murdered, do you believe the murderer should be punished less?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. And thats because you have the impetus for punishment all messed up.

[New001]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So to stay rational, a coma victim or mentally retarded person should also be "valued" less right? Sorry, I just don't buy this argument and find it borderline troubling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, what's the problem with valuing a coma victim or severely mentally retarded people less? I don't really see it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Be related to one.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is stupid. Of course if I'm related to a coma victim I'm going to value him or her highly still. I also value my dog, cat, and bird pretty damn highly too even though they're objectively less intelligent than humans.

[RoundGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
This sounds dangerously close to a natural law argument. Surely it isn't, though, right?

[/ QUOTE ]
I have no problem appealing to natural law (non-theological) when talking about cannibalism. Do you?

[lucksack]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What do you mean by "consciousness"?


[/ QUOTE ]

From Wikipedia: Consciousness is a characteristic of the mind generally regarded to comprise qualities such as subjectivity, self-awareness, sentience, sapience, and the ability to perceive the relationship.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is what I assumed your definition was, generally. So, exactly what part of this definition do you think applies to a fish?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think there's enough knowledge about fish brains and psychology to give a definite answer, but here's a couple links I found quickly with Google that might help you approximate this: http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/s1733327.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1008-26.htm

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but I'm saying that it would be hard to argue rationally that fish life has practically zero value if human life has value.

[/ QUOTE ]
What is it about a fish that gives it's life value, when compared to a human?

[/ QUOTE ]

The better question is: what is it about human life that gives it value that fish don't have?

[MidGe]

The OP has a stange way of thinking. I have eaten many eggs, some fertilized, from different species, chicken, duck, quail, sturgeon etc... Never thought I was eating meat. I never confused a chicken egg with chicken meat, or sturgeon eggs (caviar) with fish meat.

I am not sure what that has to do with abortion or objections to it, or is the OP suggesting it is OK, if not mandatory, to eat fetuses, to be consistent?

[Vagos]

[ QUOTE ]
The OP has a stange way of thinking. I have eaten many eggs, some fertilized, from different species, chicken, duck, quail, sturgeon etc... Never thought I was eating meat. I never confused a chicken egg with chicken meat, or sturgeon eggs (caviar) with fish meat.

I am not sure what that has to do with abortion or objections to it, or is the OP suggesting it is OK, if not mandatory, to eat fetuses, to be consistent?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you being intentionally obtuse or do you really value a chicken's life and a human's life the exact same?

[RoundGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
The better question is: what is it about human life that gives it value that fish don't have?

[/ QUOTE ]
My ability to ask the question.

[CORed]

I think for most people in the pro-life camp, it's a matter of when "life" begins. If that is your only criteria for the question of whether abortion is moral, there isn't really much to debate. An embryo, or fetus is definitely alive, and it is definitely a genetically distinct human.

To me, and I think many pro-choice people, it is more a question of a choice of evils. I happen to think that aborting a fetus early in pregnancy is a lesser evil than allowing a child to be born if the parents are not prepared to properly care for it. Would it be better not to get pregnant in the first place? Sure, but by the time a woman is deciding whether to have an abortion or not, that's a moot point. To me, the question of sentience and capacity to feel pain are certainly factors to be weighed in determining what is, in fact, the lesser evil.

The absolutist position that any fertilized egg is a human being deserving no different from a full term baby is to me ridiculous. You end up banning morning-after pills because they might prevent an undifferentiated blob of 32 cells from implanting, or refusing to fund stem-cell research, with the result that the "human being" whose cells might have helped a sick person gets flushed down the sewer.

However, the question of exactly where you draw the line is a bit tricky. I, for one, am not entirely comfortable with late-term abortions, partial birth or otherwise (does it really matter how you kill the fetus?), unless they are to save the mother's life, or the fetus is non-viable anyway, but I'm not exactly sure where the line should be.

[lucksack]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The better question is: what is it about human life that gives it value that fish don't have?

[/ QUOTE ]
My ability to ask the question.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean intelligence? How is a mentally retarded/stupid person as valuable as a normal person then?

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The better question is: what is it about human life that gives it value that fish don't have?



[/ QUOTE ]
My ability to ask the question.



[/ QUOTE ]

You mean intelligence? How is a mentally retarded/stupid person as valuable as a normal person then?

[/ QUOTE ]

Intrinsic value doesn't exist in anything, as far as we can determine objectively. Anytime we speak of value, it's always value in relation to something else or someone else. A very low functioning retarded person may have a lot of value to a loved one, and definitely has more value to society than a serial rapist (the latter has negative value to society).

[PokeReader]

But we "kill" people who are brain dead, and cannot exist without outside life support. The fetus cannot exist without outside life support either, the question is until the fetus reaches viability - the ability to live outside the womb on its own - is the mother as entitle to remove the live support as someone would be in the other case? I believe abortions are wrong, but not criminal. I think society should try to minimize them without repressing the rights of the woman to terminate. Number one, better birth control and education. However, I do not support abortions if the fetus is near viability unless the life of the mother is in danger. At that point the fetus' rights begin to equal the woman's.

[RoundGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The better question is: what is it about human life that gives it value that fish don't have?

[/ QUOTE ]
My ability to ask the question.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean intelligence? How is a mentally retarded/stupid person as valuable as a normal person then?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm talking about species, you're talking about individuals. Completely different argument.

My kids have 5 wild baby rabbits on our porch that they found. They are cute, funny, and interesting to watch. I value them as individual rabbits, but it won't stop me from eating rabbit stew.

Hope this helps.

[lucksack]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm talking about species, you're talking about individuals. Completely different argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you admit to being a "specist" (same as racist but for species instead of races)?

[lucksack]

[ QUOTE ]

Intrinsic value doesn't exist in anything, as far as we can determine objectively. Anytime we speak of value, it's always value in relation to something else or someone else. A very low functioning retarded person may have a lot of value to a loved one, and definitely has more value to society than a serial rapist (the latter has negative value to society).

[/ QUOTE ]

So a person who doesn't have relatives or friends and doesn't do anything that helps society, doesn't have any value?

[RoundGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'm talking about species, you're talking about individuals. Completely different argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you admit to being a "specist" (same as racist but for species instead of races)?

[/ QUOTE ]
Uh, sure. Whatever. My ancestors didn't get to the top of the food chain by being "politically correct" about chickens and fish.

[tarheeljks]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'm talking about species, you're talking about individuals. Completely different argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you admit to being a "specist" (same as racist but for species instead of races)?

[/ QUOTE ]

hah, nice try. you don't honestly believe these are the same thing do you?

[lucksack]

[ QUOTE ]

hah, nice try. you don't honestly believe these are the same thing do you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously the differences between species are much bigger than differences between races. The argument is still as dumb.

[tarheeljks]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

hah, nice try. you don't honestly believe these are the same thing do you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously the differences between species are much bigger than differences between races. The argument is still as dumb.

[/ QUOTE ]

so you believe all living organisms are on the same level?

[RoundGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
The argument is still as dumb.

[/ QUOTE ]
True. Your argument is decidedly unintelligent.

[lucksack]

[ QUOTE ]

so you believe all living organisms are on the same level?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. I believe people intuitively, irrationally dislike anything different from themselves. When skin color can have such big effects (slavery etc.), no wonder some bigger differences can cause huge, ongoing abuse.

[lucksack]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The argument is still as dumb.

[/ QUOTE ]
True. Your argument is decidedly unintelligent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh?

[RoundGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

so you believe all living organisms are on the same level?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. I believe people intuitively, irrationally dislike anything different from themselves. When skin color can have such big effects (slavery etc.), no wonder some bigger differences can cause huge, ongoing abuse.

[/ QUOTE ]
Please tell me how to abuse a fish.

[RoundGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The argument is still as dumb.

[/ QUOTE ]
True. Your argument is decidedly unintelligent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh?

[/ QUOTE ]
You're right, I'm ahead of myself. How about you put forth an actual, rational, coherent argument, and then we can decide if it's dumb. So far, you have yet to do so.

[lucksack]

I think you are the one who needs to tell where exactly are the differences that make human life so valuable when animal life in general has about zero value.

[lucksack]

[ QUOTE ]

Please tell me how to abuse a fish.

[/ QUOTE ]

By causing it pain and ending its life?

[RoundGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you are the one who needs to tell where exactly are the differences that make human life so valuable when animal life in general has about zero value.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've tried. Consciousness, intelligence, self-awareness, the ability to ask questions like the one's we are asking, food-chain issues (natural law), etc.

I've gone through all of your posts and just can't figure out your argument. On one hand you want to equate the life-value of a fish to a human, but then in the next post you say that the life-value of a comatose human is less than a normal human. wtf?

Maybe we should be targeting retarded fish. I don't know. Please explain.

[RoundGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Please tell me how to abuse a fish.

[/ QUOTE ]

By causing it pain and ending its life?

[/ QUOTE ]
What's the difference between me eating the fish, or a bigger fish eating the fish?

[lucksack]

The difference is that you have other possibilities.

Consciousness, self-awareness:
Looks like many animals might have these too.

intelligence, the ability to ask questions like the one's we are asking:
The "is an idiot less valuable than normal person" problem.

food-chain issues (natural law):
Just because something has been going on in the past, doesn't mean it's right and we should continue doing it.

Anything else or more specific stuff? Please help me feel less guilty about eating meat.

I do not want to equate the value of fish to a human's value, I think the value between species gradually changes, and the differences are MUCH smaller than most people tend to think.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I do not want to equate the value of fish to a human's value, I think the value between species gradually changes, and the differences are MUCH smaller than most people tend to think.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's an arbitrary line(s) we're talking about here, so it can't be anywhere but where people think it is. It's not like we're going to be stumbling down the hall, trip, and say "aha, that's where the line REALLY is".

luckyme

[lucksack]

Yes, and I claim that the arbitrary lines are now generally drawn based on outdated/retarded/selfish thinking.

[RoundGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
The difference is that you have other possibilities.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, they are endless. I'm at the top of the food chain. I can eat anything I desire. Thank you ancestors.

[ QUOTE ]
Consciousness, self-awareness:
Looks like many animals might have these too.

[/ QUOTE ]
I would love to see your research on any species that even remotely resembles humans in these areas.

[ QUOTE ]
intelligence, the ability to ask questions like the one's we are asking:
The "is an idiot less valuable than normal person" problem.

[/ QUOTE ]
This seems to be your problem, not mine. I have no problem with idiots. They are human, and have as much life-value as I do. Animals do not.

[ QUOTE ]
food-chain issues (natural law):
Just because something has been going on in the past, doesn't mean it's right and we should continue doing it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why not? It seems to have served us well as a species.

[ QUOTE ]
Anything else or more specific stuff? Please help me feel less guilty about eating meat.

[/ QUOTE ]
I feel no guilt about eating meat -- none. But it seems you do, for some unatural reason. Thus, you must try to convince me, and the world, that I am the villian. Good luck.

[ QUOTE ]
I do not want to equate the value of fish to a human's value, I think the value between species gradually changes, and the differences are MUCH smaller than most people tend to think.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think the differences are much LARGER than YOU tend to think. But, thank you for your opinion. As silly as it is, I respect your right to hold it. Do you respect my right to my opinion -- which has been the norm for millenia?

[lucksack]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, they are endless. I'm at the top of the food chain. I can eat anything I desire. Thank you ancestors.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes you can, because we are more powerful than animals. You can also fe. rape a woman because you are (probably) stronger than her.

[ QUOTE ]
I would love to see your research on any species that even remotely resembles humans in these areas.

[/ QUOTE ]
Here's some research for you:
http://www.sentientbeings.org/science_piggy.htm
Quote of some more interesting points:
"Humans, monkeys and dolphins were able to perform this task, the humans and monkeys using buttons or levers and the dolphins using paddles. And the ability to indicate that they didn't know the answer, in response to the harder tests, showed that members of all three species had a degree of mental awareness. Scientists sometimes equate this kind of intelligence with self-awareness - a high degree of consciousness. Rats and pigeons, however, were unable to use the "uncertain" key, which may mean that they are not conscious of their thoughts.

However, an animal that is not aware of its thoughts may still be aware of its feelings and emotions. An awareness of sensations and emotions is known as "feelings consciousness". As far as welfare is concerned, this is the crux of the matter: what an animal feels, not just what it thinks."

Some more links on the subject here: http://www.sentientbeings.org/science.htm

[ QUOTE ]
intelligence, the ability to ask questions like the one's we are asking: This seems to be your problem, not mine. I have no problem with idiots. They are human, and have as much life-value as I do. Animals do not.

[/ QUOTE ]
So it's not the stupidity that matters, it matters that they are animals of different species.

[ QUOTE ]
food-chain issues (natural law):

Just because something has been going on in the past, doesn't mean it's right and we should continue doing it.


Why not? It seems to have served us well as a species.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Us. As a species. Also, we don't need to eat meat anymore, because it would be pretty easy to produce lots of other, healthy food. (Don't even try to claim vegan diets can't be healthy.)

[ QUOTE ]
I think the differences are much LARGER than YOU tend to think.

[/ QUOTE ]

I already know you think so, but you don't seem to be showing much of the evidence/reasoning that you base your opinion on. Or actually, it seems that it's not based on any rational thinking. Also, it doesn't prove anything that it has been the "norm for millenia", if it has been (meat industry like we have now definitely hasn't existed for nearly that long, and eating meat used to be much less common than it's now).

Link to one more article that you may or may not find interesting and eye-opening: web page (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1543755,00.html)

[RoundGuy]

Well, luck, it's been a long day. Do you ever sleep in Finland?

I promise I won't respond until I read the links you posted. Which means, probably never.

Enjoy your Tofu!

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The difference is that you have other possibilities.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, they are endless. I'm at the top of the food chain. I can eat anything I desire. Thank you ancestors.

[ QUOTE ]
Consciousness, self-awareness:
Looks like many animals might have these too.

[/ QUOTE ]
I would love to see your research on any species that even remotely resembles humans in these areas.

[ QUOTE ]
intelligence, the ability to ask questions like the one's we are asking:
The "is an idiot less valuable than normal person" problem.

[/ QUOTE ]
This seems to be your problem, not mine. I have no problem with idiots. They are human, and have as much life-value as I do. Animals do not.

[ QUOTE ]
food-chain issues (natural law):
Just because something has been going on in the past, doesn't mean it's right and we should continue doing it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why not? It seems to have served us well as a species.

[ QUOTE ]
Anything else or more specific stuff? Please help me feel less guilty about eating meat.

[/ QUOTE ]
I feel no guilt about eating meat -- none. But it seems you do, for some unatural reason. Thus, you must try to convince me, and the world, that I am the villian. Good luck.

[ QUOTE ]
I do not want to equate the value of fish to a human's value, I think the value between species gradually changes, and the differences are MUCH smaller than most people tend to think.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think the differences are much LARGER than YOU tend to think. But, thank you for your opinion. As silly as it is, I respect your right to hold it. Do you respect my right to my opinion -- which has been the norm for millenia?

[/ QUOTE ]

The question is simply whether you care if you are consistent with your views on many different issues, and if principles that you employ for some issues can be used for others. Simply repeating these empty excuses like "Its been working for milennia" and "I'm at the top of the chain" are fine, but they prevent you from getting at the actual core principles involved. You seem to draw the line immediately at human beings. Can you explain why? What is it about human beings that gives infinite value to their lives and zero value to the life of anything below? Do you think we should kill and eat chimps? Its pretty fortunate for you that the boundary between human beings and other animals happens to be pretty solid, although this is just a lucky accident.

[roy_miami]

For every human fetus that dies a thousand animals are saved. Thats a pretty good trade off if you ask me.

[almostbusto]

[ QUOTE ]
For every human fetus that dies a thousand animals are saved. Thats a pretty good trade off if you ask me.

[/ QUOTE ]

while we are at it, shouldn't we kill every predatory animal out there? OH WAIT, that doesn't make any [censored] sense!

nice thought though...

[RoundGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
For every human fetus that dies a thousand animals are saved. Thats a pretty good trade off if you ask me.

[/ QUOTE ]
For every acre of soybeans harvested to get you your tofu, countless animals are killed -- from rabbits to ground squirrels to insects. Is that a good trade-off for you?

[RoundGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
The question is simply whether you care if you are consistent with your views on many different issues, and if principles that you employ for some issues can be used for others.

[/ QUOTE ]
For example?

[ QUOTE ]
Simply repeating these empty excuses like "Its been working for milennia" and "I'm at the top of the chain" are fine, but they prevent you from getting at the actual core principles involved.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why are these excuses "empty"? What "core principles involved" are you talking about?

[ QUOTE ]
You seem to draw the line immediately at human beings. Can you explain why?

[/ QUOTE ]
Not really. Is that necessary?

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think we should kill and eat chimps?

[/ QUOTE ]
I would find it distasteful (pardon the pun), but I would also find eating a dog distasteful. I guess it's just what you're used to, or what is standard. I would not see anything inherently wrong with eating chimps. Would you? Why? (assuming you are a meat-eater) What makes a chimp different in your mind compared to a cow?

[ QUOTE ]
Its pretty fortunate for you that the boundary between human beings and other animals happens to be pretty solid, although this is just a lucky accident.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I guess I'm just lucky like that. Not sure how you expect me to respond to this.

[Bakes]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, luck, it's been a long day. Do you ever sleep in Finland?

I promise I won't respond until I read the links you posted. Which means, probably never.

Enjoy your Tofu!

[/ QUOTE ]

oh my god what a [censored] dickbag. so easy to come into a thread and be an arrogant [censored], patronize other people and their beliefs, not adress the very valid points they bring up and then leave when you realize you painted yourself into a corner. not that i am shocked, you encounter [censored] like these all the time when you happen to prefer an alternative lifestyle to theirs.

-luego

[RoundGuy]

Hi. So nice of you to join us.


[ QUOTE ]
oh my god what a [censored] dickbag. so easy to come into a thread and be an arrogant [censored]

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, you seem to be doing that quite well. Congrats.

[ QUOTE ]
patronize other people and their beliefs, not adress the very valid points they bring up and then leave when you realize you painted yourself into a corner.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have not left, and I don't see the corner I'm painted in. I believe I've answered most questions asked of me. I simply told luck (because it wouldn't be fair to him) that I wouldn't respond to his post without reading the links. And, since I really have no desire to be a vegan, I will probably never read the links. So, there you go.

[ QUOTE ]
not that i am shocked, you encounter [censored] like these all the time when you happen to prefer an alternative lifestyle to theirs.

[/ QUOTE ]
Were you born a douchebag, or is it a learned trait? Perhaps you missed this of mine:

"Vegans are fine upstanding citizens in my book (unless they're dirty hippies), it's a choice they've made. There is no right or wrong about what our species eats"

The hippie thing was a take-off on Borodog's joke, which you would know if you bothered to actually read the thread.

I am a meat-eater, and I will defend my right to eat meat, and try to explain why I believe it is appropriate. I have no problem with vegans. I don't understand them, but I respect their right to eat what they choose.

Do you respect my right to eat meat? Probably not. Why? Because you're a douchebag.

[lucksack]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, luck, it's been a long day. Do you ever sleep in Finland?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but not when I want to watch sports from TV (and post on 2+2 at the same time).

[ QUOTE ]
I would love to see your research on any species that even remotely resembles humans in these areas.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I promise I won't respond until I read the links you posted. Which means, probably never.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well played. Are you afraid that if you actually read that stuff, you would start to have problems in convincing yourself that your irrational beliefs are correct?

[ QUOTE ]
Enjoy your Tofu!

[/ QUOTE ]

Some tofu tastes really good. You don't have to believe, but it really does.

[RoundGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
Well played. Are you afraid that if you actually read that stuff, you would start to have problems in convincing yourself that your irrational beliefs are correct?

[/ QUOTE ]
Trust me, my fine Finnish friend, there is nothing, absolutely nothing, that I could ever read that would convince me to give up my beloved steak on the grill.

[ QUOTE ]
Some tofu tastes really good. You don't have to believe, but it really does.

[/ QUOTE ]
I love tofu in Chinese hot and sour soup, but I don't think I could eat it much plainer than that.