Animal Rights and Abortion

[Sava]

Originally posted by Big Crunch

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....

exactly... it's mostly about suffering. Except the real whackos want humanity destroyed and nature to once again rule the Earth. These nutz are about as crazy as the pro-lifers.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Given: Humans are animals.
Given: Person A feels killing animals is wrong.
Given: Person A feels chicken embryos are animals.
Therefore: Person A should consider human embryos are animals too, and feel killing them is wrong.

What I ojected to is your apparent extrapolation of your friend's peculiar position to pro-choicers in general.

[OzzyKP]

I didn't really extrapolate, I just wondered outloud how many pro-choice vegitarians also commit such a hypocrisy. I didn't say that most do.

But my main point was that, putting these hypocrites aside, there should be a natural alliance between animal rights and pro-life folks. Ben, have you ever done outreach to vegitarians?

Btw, I got a pamphlet the other day about Christianity and vegitarianism, and how the two support each other.

[OzzyKP]

Plus most pro-choicers aren't vegitarians anyways I'd guess, so your rush to condemn my imaginary 'extrapolation' is just a sign of your insecure defensiveness.

So there.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Btw, I got a pamphlet the other day about Christianity and vegitarianism, and how the two support each other.

They do. Afterall, modern farming involves artificial insemination, abortion, rape, and cannibalism. How could a christian possibly eat a hamburger without going straight to the bottom of hell?

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben, have you ever done outreach to vegitarians?

One of the signs that are done in the States says,

Yes to humane treatment of animals.

No to animalistic treatment of humans.

I can show you the sign, via PM.

[Sava]

I didn't really extrapolate, I just wondered outloud how many pro-choice vegitarians also commit such a hypocrisy. I didn't say that most do.

Two of my cousins are pro-choice, vegetarian women... (32 and 28 respectively) the younger says (as I've posed the question before) that animal rights IS about suffering and not death. She is a vegetarian because of health reasons (especially now that a Republican de-regulation administration is in office ) and animal suffering. She says she is against abortion, but it should be her choice, not the government's.

Plus, an animal is a self-aware lifeform. Fetuses... well... aren't. I don't know about you guys, but I don't remember being aware in the womb. And if I was aborted, I wouldn't have even known or felt it.

Deep down, I still believe the pro-life stance is about a sense of control over women's bodies and not the suffering of unborn fetuses. If pro-lifers were genuinely concerned about the welfare of children, they wouldn't support right-wing social policies. Granted, there are some who do care about child-welfare, but they are few and far between.

The two issues aren't related at all. In fact, I bet more pro-lifers are part of the right-wing anti-animal rights crowd.

[Ben Kenobi]

She says she is against abortion, but it should be her choice, not the government's.

So what about ranchers? Shouldn't they be able to kill animals if that is their choice?

Plus, an animal is a self-aware lifeform. Fetuses... well... aren't.

All forms of animal life are self-aware? That's an interesting definition, if you can also reject unborn children.

I don't know about you guys, but I don't remember being aware in the womb.

My earliest memory is when I was three. Does this mean my mom should be able to kill me up until that age?

And if I was aborted, I wouldn't have even known or felt it.

Oh, you would have felt it. The Lancet recommends the use of anaesthetia for the unborn children in an abortion.

Deep down, I still believe the pro-life stance is about a sense of control over women's bodies and not the suffering of unborn fetuses.

And what about the majority of prolifers, whom are women?

If pro-lifers were genuinely concerned about the welfare of children, they wouldn't support right-wing social policies.

Such as no child left behind? I fail to see how such right-wing social policies hurt children.

The two issues aren't related at all. In fact, I bet more pro-lifers are part of the right-wing anti-animal rights crowd.

You are correct, that they are two different issues. However, it still remains for the pro-choice vegetarians to justify why they treat an unborn child worse then they do any other animal.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So what about ranchers? Shouldn't they be able to kill animals if that is their choice?

if those animals were inside the ranchers bodies, and not having the right to control their bodies was a threat to their health, then yes. But the two aren't related, as you try to connect them.

All forms of animal life are self-aware? That's an interesting definition, if you can also reject unborn children.

it depends... I'm not going to define which animals are or aren't "self-aware" the point is, there is unwarranted suffering in the case of animal rights, and well, there isn't any (detectable) suffering in abortion. Death does not equal suffering. If anything, abortion is akin to euthenasia.

My earliest memory is when I was three. Does this mean my mom should be able to kill me up until that age?

yes... but just you jk

infanticide has been a part of human civilization longer than marriage... but yet tradition is one of those excuses you use for the gay marriage argument... so which is it? is tradition good or bad... you can't have it both ways.

Oh, you would have felt it. The Lancet recommends the use of anaesthetia for the unborn children in an abortion.

fine, then use anaesthesia...

And what about the majority of prolifers, whom are women?

they don't have the right to usurp other women's rights either.

Such as no child left behind? I fail to see how such right-wing social policies hurt children.

you obviously aren't following how terrible a policy that is... you seem to be failing to see a lot of things then.

You are correct, that they are two different issues. However, it still remains for the pro-choice vegetarians to justify why they treat an unborn child worse then they do any other animal.

because an unborn child (except those intended to be born) has little value... plus, if this is about hypocrisy, the right-wing pro-lifers (of which there are MORE of) are much more hypocritical when it comes to child welfare. Once they're out of the womb, righties cease to be "pro-life".

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Why should animals have rights anyway?

Why shouldn't they?

[Ben Kenobi]

and not having the right to control their bodies was a threat to their health,

Are most pregnancies a threat to the health of a woman?

Secondly, is the unborn child a part of the mother's body? If so, how does the child become a baby at birth, and distinct from the mother?

I'm not going to define which animals are or aren't "self-aware" the point is, there is unwarranted suffering in the case of animal rights, and well, there isn't any (detectable) suffering in abortion.

Yet,

fine, then use anaesthesia...

So the children do suffer unnecessarily, for the convenience of the mother in an abortion. Seems to me if you believe in animal rights, you should also protect the unborn children.

infanticide has been a part of human civilization longer than marriage... but yet tradition is one of those excuses you use for the gay marriage argument...

Are you defending infanticide, or not, Sava? If not, why not?

Gay marriage has nothing to do with this issue, so please try to keep up, eh?

is tradition good or bad... you can't have it both ways

The tradition has been, at least in Western Society, to value children, not to dispose of them in the trash.

you seem to be failing to see a lot of things then.

Regardless of these other positions, will you agree with me that it should be wrong to kill an innocent person in an abortion?

because an unborn child (except those intended to be born) has little value

Interesting. You prove my very first point in this thread. Liberals believe in constructed worth, and not intrinsic value.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Liberals believe in constructed worth, and not intrinsic value.

That's an overgeneralization.

BTW, since when do Christians (left or right) believe in the intrinsic worth of people? Isn't the moral worth of people conferred by God? That sounds external, not intrinsic.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
The animals killed in modern slaughterhouses are killed quite painlessly.

That's what they want you to believe, but it's not universally true.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why shouldn't they?

Because we decided they are too tasty for that . Society determines rights. Animals can't join our society (they aren't built for it) and thus do not gain humanity's rights.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Rex Little
Slight nitpick: isn't Andrea Dworkin a "she"?

Andrea Dworkin, yes. Phillip Dworkin, no. Check the link.