Whoops I meant to say that I understand your point. As a meat eater I don't agree with your argument regarding valuing life by not eating meat. While animals are alive I accept that we are omnivorous beings that require eating other forms of life to live.
No because it can't develop if left on its own. It is totally dependent on intervention from a human.
<b>Originally posted by Batman Jones You're a strange man, giddyup. I don't even know what that means. </b> You mock my pro-Life self-proclamation because I eat meat so I mock your pro-Choice self-proclamation because you would deny my reasonable right to draw a distinction between humans and other creatures.
Only if you are of the OPINION that the fetus is a "person." You have no right to force your opinion on anyone else. And both definitions, as our respective opinions, are equally valid. Neither one of us has any right to force our opinion on the other. That is the difference between you and I. I would NEVER presume to force my opinion on another. That is the woman's choice and nobody else's. I was talking about YOUR definition. If the notion of abortion did not even exist in our minds, would you have any use for your definition of being alive?
Giddyup; Except that is the crux of Andymoon's argument. The embryo/fetus is totally dependent on another human for survival. Far beyond what is required of raising a child that is born. I likened this in a previous debate towards hooking someone up to you to benefit from the functioning of your organs. That would be an unacceptable imposition of someone elses right to life on you which is Andymoon's point. As I've said though we need to get beyond the question of mere genetic uniqueness to decide when is a life a life and I appreciate your answer in regards to embryos conceived outside a human body. I think the key question is function which will IMO will determine when a clump of cells is really human. At that point then I think given the unique nature of pregnancy that an argument can be made that the fetus has a right to impose upon the mother. Perhaps this could be considered a form of innate legal contract where the fetus is proven to be a being capable of reasoning, expressing that it wants to be alive, that then the mother must bring it to a term where it can be viable once taken out of the womb. That requires evidence that their are higher brain functions capable of decision making and prior to then it is an unreasoning clump of cells.
Not really. I don't care about the semantics chosen by opposing sides in the abortion wars. I care about the ethics behind them. I don't mock your anti-abortion credentials. I question the depth of your apparently strongly held conviction regarding the sanctity of life, since it indicates you value life in a very, very narrow way. You display virtually no concern for the deaths of soldiers or civilians from the other side in a war, you're ambivalent about state sanctioned executions and you eat dead creatures every day. When I take issue with that, I'm not saying you're not a strict pro-lifer in the narrow terms of the abortion debate -- I'm saying your lectures on the sanctity of life come from an ethically compromised position and that your argument that fetuses are dying for the convenience of the women who make that difficult choice are hollow when you eat corpses for the very same reason. I don't know when human life begins and I don't know when animal life begins, but I know for certain that the animals you eat were definitely alive when they were killed, that they were raised specifically to be killed and that they were killed in truly brutal ways. As such, although I have serious problems with abortion, I personally have a bigger problem with the wholesale slaughter of living, breathing, pain-feeling animals than I do with abortion. For one thing, nobody has sex for the purpose of having an abortion. The animals you eat were raised to be slaughtered on purpose and for no reason other than your pleasure. I find that deeply despicable, really evil even, but I still would not advocate a law that would put you in jail for choosing to eat them. I'd say that's pretty pro-choice.
I doubt the debate concerning abortion is going to die anytime soon. On the other hand, biotech and McPregnancies will definitely be driven by a behind the doors demand, much like the slaughterhouses of the meat industry. Abortion is rooted in tradition and uncompromising polarity. Standards and practices by commitees are never static. Money considerations and powerful lobbies will definitely erode it to the point where something will go wrong to shock us back into reality. The growing trend in industrialized countries is headed towards a stable or negative birth ratio. The average age a couple has their first child is rising to the mid thirties, while fertility rates is mysteriously declining (i.e. organic pollutants circulating around the world...). In-vitro fertilization is only the start. Family values will take up a different meaning when 40 year old couples want the best for their first or second child knowing full well that it's probably their best shot before they grow too old. Playing devil's advocate here, but we really don't need to eat animals to live. There's plenty of alternate foods that provides all the essential amino acids we need. Not only that, the amount of arable land used by livestock is ten times more than that used by agriculture. Plus, a meatless lifestyle has shown to increase life expectancy. I still eat meat knowing all that entails with it. Heck, the Europeans traveled around the world because of the insatiable demand for spice. But we don't need meat to survive anymore. It is a conscious and self driven choice.
Further derailing this thread. We might not need to eat meat but we need to eat other living organisms. Plants are alive even if they don't get up and move around. Also I've heard that vegan diets are not that healthy because there are still some key amino acids that have to be gotten from animal products. This could come from eggs or milk but there we're still exploiting animals. For that matter insect and rodents frequently get milled into grain so like it or not even vegans are eating animals. We were evolved to be omnivores who need a significant amount of protein in our diet. The best way for that is to eat meat. Its true that much of that can be replaced with vegetable proteins but not completely and I'll frankly admit not as tastely. I agree that there's alot of problems with the meat industry and I try to moderate my meat consumption. Also when I get the chance I try to buy organically raised meat.
There are slight modifications. First off a vegan diet for young children isn't healthy for them, and in NY a couple was actually brought to trial for forcing one on their child. Some expectant mothers need actual meet in order to get all the nutrients they need. Some aren't able to eat the massive amounts certain veggies etc. because of sensitive stomachs and all that. I know at least two women who's doctors told them they needed to start eating meat for the duration of their pregnancy. One kept on eating after the pregnancy and the other returned to a vegetarian life style.
It's not true that you can't get plenty of protein, all the necessary vitamins and all the necessary amino acids from a strict vegan diet. You can. It's difficult sometimes, but you can. Again, this all comes down to convenience. There was a time when we were physically omnivorous. We've evolved past that as evidenced by the extreme change to our digestive tracts. Carnivores have very short digestive tracts, omnivores have medium ones and herbivores have very long ones. We used to have medium ones, now they're very long. It's evolution 101. When we were hunter/gatherers, we needed the intestines to digest meat. Now that we don't need meat to survive, our intestines have adjusted to those of herbivores. That's the main reason meat is difficult to digest and that traces stay in your system for up to two years after consumption. That said, in the case that a woman's life or health (or that of her fetus) was at risk from a vegan diet, by all means eat what you need to get by. My vegan stuff in this thread has been a direct reply to giddyup's assertion that abortions are deaths as a matter of convenience. So are burgers.
I understand and I wasn't trying to say Veganism is bad or anything like that. It may be technically possible to get everything a growing child needs through the vegan diet but it isn't realistic. I do agree that as adults it is fine for one to choose a vegan life style and there is no reason it should be a health risk at all. I wasn't really trying to argue. Just clarify a couple of exemptions.
wait...be truthful about it. if you're "erring" one way or the other, you're admitting you don't know for sure. so if it is human...if it is a living human being, then your "erring" on the side of caution is costing that human being his/her life. there's no way around that. you BELIEVE it's not a human being...but you have to admit it's at least arguable. obviously it's arguable.
Batman -- i admire the hell out of you for that. i tell that to Jeff sometimes, too. i don't feel as strongly convicted about that as you do...but i "get it." and you're right that it clearly would not be easy to adopt a new diet entirely eliminating meat. i have considered it from time to time...im not sure i could do that. i think i could quit red meat...and stick with seafood or something...but even that may be offensive to someone in your frame of mind on this issue. anyway...just think it's cool that it's more than just talk to you...more than just an argument.
Thanks, Max. I admire the way you live your faith too. The toughest part about the diet's getting started. If you ever want to try, I'd be happy to help out.
sorry..don't mean to pick on you, andy...but i saw this and felt compelled to respond. you're absolutely forcing your OPINION. absolutely. the question is only who you're forcing it against. if you're wrong about life...if you're wrong about it's inception...then the forcing of your OPINION is far more damaging in that it ultimately results in the death of a human being. from my perspective...those who share my opinion...it's seen as a tragedy that opinion has been forced for so long on living beings.
