If eating meat is unethical, why is it ok to kill babies?

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Roman, Jun 27, 2006.

  1. Roman Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,560
    Why are so many vegans/vegetarians aghast at the idea of raising dumb animals for food meat, yet believe it's an unalienable right to kill unborn babies?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,426
    You're over-simplifying, and you're loading your question. (Why, I wonder.)

    First, loading the question:

    1. The term "dumb animal" refers to the animal's inability to speak, not its intelligence.
    2. Very few, if any, people claim an inalienable right to "kill unborn babies". Certainly, that is not the usual right-to-choose position.
    3. The term "unborn baby" is emotive and begs the question, in that it attempts to equate, in an underhanded way, a bundle of cells just after conception with a new-born child.

    Now, to answer your question:

    Abortion and vegetarianism are two separate issues. There are many reasons people can be for or against abortion, or for or against vegetarianism. Some people are vegetarian for health reasons, for example. But let's assume you're talking about morality. After all, you posted this in the ethics forum.

    In the case of vegetarianism, we need to balance the rights of a potential food animal (if any) against the right of a human being to treat that animal solely as a resource for his own exploitation. A moral person ought to conclude that there is no good basis for according basic rights (such as the right not to be treated as a resource without intrinsic value) to human beings, while at the same time not according those rights to the animals commonly eaten for their meat.

    In the case of abortion, we need to balance the rights of a human mother against the rights (if any) of her unborn child/foetus/blastocyst. A moral person will decide that in some instances the rights of a human mother regarding her own body and her own life course will outweigh the presumptive right to life of the unborn child.

    Not many people support a blanket right to abortion, as you would pretend. For most people who have thought about the issue, abortion should be permissible in some circumstances but not others.

    Any further questions?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Roman Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,560
    I'm glad you caught all that

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    "In some circumstances." What are some circumstances? The woman is physically incapable of having a child without serious risk of death? Or a seventeen year-old who will have to go to work and skip college because she wasn't as responsible as she should have been?

    In what cases should abortion be allowed, and in which cases should they not? "Just a bundle of cells" isn't very far from "just a collection of delicious bacon, ham and roasts." How is it ok to kill our own kind simply because they would be an inconvience, but not ok to eat animals because they taste good?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. one_raven God is a Chinese Whisper Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,433
    Excellent post, James, but I have to take issue with one aspect that, while appears to be simple semantics, underlines a great problem within the issue.
    I don’t know anyone who is “for abortion”.
    It is certainly not the mainstream view.

    There is a prevalent view (or at least a method of propaganda) among those who would like to see abortion illegal, that pro-choicers ARE, in fact, “for abortion”.

    The issue, as I am sure you know, is not about whether abortion is a good or bad thing.
    The vast majority of people would like to see as few abortions performed as possible.
    The difference of opinion comes about in the details of exactly how to reduce the numbers of abortion, and whether or not it is an issue that the government should be allowed to legislate – or if it is even possible to fairly legislate.
    The left, in classic, bumbling, liberal style, gets suckered into the argument, and allows the right to load it in a way that makes their position look “wrong” or immoral – they foolishly allow the debate to be framed as one about whether abortion is right or wrong.
    One way they do this, is through the subtlety of language - such as discussing whether someone is “for or against abortion”.

    When the right attacks the left regarding how wrong abortion is, they should measure their responses and agree that they want to see as few abortions as possible, and elucidate exactly how they plan on working towards that common goal together.
    Instead, they take the foolish road and make themselves look like asses.
     
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2006
  8. perplexity Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,179
    I'd like to see the evidence for that assertion.

    Is it just an impression, or statistically verified?

    --- Ron.
     
  9. Genji Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,285
    I'm a carnivore and pro-abortion. I guess it's good we don't eat the fetuses huh!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,426
    You left out the stage of the pregnancy in each case, and the woman's wishes. Every case is different. Well, not to you, perhaps.

    Who said it was ok to kill our own kind "simply because they would be an inconvenience"?
     
  11. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,894
    Could someone please give me some sort of justification for the topic comparison? I don't see how the question has any real application: Eating meat vs. abortion. Really, I don't see it. Maybe it's just me.
     
  12. Roman Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,560
    I was asking you, James. What circumstances is it ok for an abortion? Only when the mother's life is threatened? How threatened?

    Uh, the people who do it? The people who support it?


    I've started going to school out of state, very far away from where I grew up. People are very different there. They all pretend to be like what TV tells them to be, it's rather weird. Some friends of mine are vegetarians. They don't eat meat because they tell me they don't want to hurt any animals, but they're all for abortions. I don't get it.
     
  13. Hapsburg Hellenistic polytheist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,229
    Because vegans are hypocrites, whilst we omnivores are consistent and healthier.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    That gives me an idea...
    I mean, really, why waste them? The ones that can't be used for stem-cell research should be redistributed as food so that thier nutrients can be recycled back to thier environment.
     
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2006
  14. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,894
    Seriously, if eating meat is unethical, why is it okay to drive single-occupant in a multi-occupancy vehicle while burning grossly unnecessary amounts of decomposed organic material and polluting the world?

    If eating meat is unethical, why is it okay to build nuclear weapons?

    If eating meat is unethical, did Dr. Leonard Jeffries have a point when he said the space shuttle Challenger disaster was praiseworthy for slowing the progress of whites spreading their filth throughout the Universe?

    If eating meat is unethical, why is masturbation such a discomforting subject for so many people to discuss?

    Help me out. I ask again because I truly don't see it: If eating meat is unethical, why is abortion acceptable?

    How does the one even regard the other?

    If eating meat is ethical, on the other hand, then why is necrophiliac bestial sodomy wrong?

    A to B to W to J to C? I'm sorry, I just don't get it.

    Relevant question: What would Jesus do?

    Help me understand the connection. Please.
     
  15. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,426
    I agree with tiassa. I don't see much of a link between eating or not eating meat and being pro-life or pro-choice.

    Maybe somebody can explain the link.
     
  16. Hapsburg Hellenistic polytheist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,229
    An idiot who thinks a fetus or embryo is a person might mistakenly make a correlation between killing a fetus and killing a fully-grown animal, with both of them being some kind of life-form. But, of course, they neglect to comprehend that a human fetus is not a human, yet.
     
  17. Roman Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,560
    James has convinced me that killing and eating animals for my own enjoyment is wrong. Cause you know, it hurts them.

    So going on the basis of hurt, why is it ok to hurt unborn children, but not cows?
     
  18. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    Its an issue of options vs principles - you may be a compassionate person but live in a desolate area of alaska and be forced to eat meat - or you may be against seeing animals slaughtered, which is why slaugherhouses are not made of glass - but thing about eating meat or abortion is that it is a type of violence that you can easily avoid (unless you only have an unusually slim array of options to choose from)

    Sure, in this world nobody is completely nonviolent since the material reality dictates that one living entity is food for another, but still, at least on the human platform, there is a distinction between violent, excessively violent, excessively cruel and violent etc etc
     
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,426
    Not a bad start, but you have a fair way to go.

    Haven't I covered this already?

    1. As a general proposition, it is not ok to hurt unborn children.
    2. Not all unborn children can be hurt, since not all have the capacity for feeling pain.
    3. The rights of an unborn child must be weighed against other rights which may be in conflict - most especially the rights of the mother.

    Anything else I can help you with?
     
  20. Roman Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,560
    So it depends on how developed the fetus is + the rights of the mother. What count as the mother's rights? Her right to life? Her right to living a life not having been crippled by bearing the child? Her right to education? Where is the line drawn.

    Personally, I eat meat because it's the fastest and easiest way to get a large number of amino acids into me in a short and tasty amount of time.
     
  21. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,894
    I'm glad I don't have this issue on my conscience. It gets complicated, and instantly.

    To wit, there were reports last year, as I recall, that researchers could demonstrate that cruel words registered in some of the same places in the brain that physical pain registers. In other words, sticks and stones can break your bones, and yes, naughty words and names can hurt you.

    So going on the basis of hurt, if it is unethical to eat meat, how dare we ever speak passionately to one another except for overflowing joy.

    (Sing it with me, and beat your heads in time: Hap-py hap-py joy joy! Hap-py hap-py joy joy! Hap-py hap-py joy joy! Hap-py hap-py joy joy! Hap-py hap-py joy joy! Hap-py hap-py joy joy! Hap-py hap-py hap-py hap-py hap-py hap-py joy joy joyyyyyy!)

    Ren Hoek is the devil, and hippies should rule the world. Patchouli for all. Liberation from bathing! Burn the bra, bury the shower. Everybody get up and dance, for love's sake!

    Er ... okay, maybe I'm getting carried away, but still ... there are more relevant connections, I'm sure. Thankfully, since I don't have an ethical quandary with eating meat, the connections are not left for me to make. But I still think it's a stretch.

    After all, by the same principle, if we accept that life is suffering, is it not unethical, then, to have the babies?

    Just wondering.
     
  22. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,426
    Roman:

    It is very difficult to draw the line in a general way. Hence, the best option is to allow mothers to decide for themselves, rather than have George W. Bush or some equivalent person decide how they ought to live their lives for them.

    This ignores the morals of eating meat, of course.
     
  23. Roman Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,560
    I see your point, but aren't you failing to recognize the severity of killing the unborn if laws are not passed to protect them?

    Here's a little anecdotal story.
    I know this girl, she's like 17 or 18 now, but she got knocked up some years ago. Rather than ruin her life with a kid, she aborted by taking lots of drugs.

    And I'm certain she's not the only case where a mother chose to kill her offspring simply because it would be an inconvenience.

    Of course.
    But just like abortions, it's a matter of convenience and a lapse of personal responsibility. I would encourage any girl I got preggers to get an abortion, as a kid would be damn inconvenient for me, just like eating meat is convenient, regardless of the cows' feelings on the matter.
     

Share This Page