|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:38 am
Why is it okay to kill animals? An animal is alive, and is a seperate physical entity. Some have emotions, thinking processes and capabilites to learn. Why is it okay to kill animals then? And if anyone on here is a vegan, explain to me why is it okay to kill plants.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2005 6:03 pm
Because animals taste good. domokun
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2005 4:16 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 22, 2005 10:33 am
Xanaphia00 Why is it okay to kill animals? An animal is alive, and is a seperate physical entity. Some have emotions, thinking processes and capabilites to learn. Why is it okay to kill animals then? And if anyone on here is a vegan, explain to me why is it okay to kill plants. It's not okay to kill animals. No one would excuse you if you went out and shot a couple dogs, or poisoned a few orangutans. That's because animals A) Can feel pain and fear, B) Are often beloved pets, endangered species, or integral to the functioning of the ecosystem, and C) Usually aren't hurting anyone (and if they are, it's ok to kill them). To relate that to abortion, fetuses violate all of the above. They don't feel pain or fear, they aren't beloved (by those who don't want them) or integral, and they are hurting the woman they are living off of. It's more acceptable to kill plants, especially for food and shelter. They don't think or feel at all. However, we can't just go around chopping down every tree in the forest, or else we'll run out of oxygen and the entire human race will die. I understand your sentiments, Xanaphia, but you're a little off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2005 2:30 am
Mistress DragonFlame Because animals taste good. domokun kudos to that. without animals there would be........................ NO PEPPERONI PIZZA! le gasp!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:23 am
Stop killing babies, and I'll become a Vegan, ok 3nodding
No, i'm quite serious about this one.
And more importantly, no one our side has really said it to be ok, we do have alot of envirementalists on our side (although your side has more aka Overpopulation).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2005 2:11 pm
kp606 Stop killing babies, and I'll become a Vegan, ok 3nodding If Abortion was ever made illegal, then so would I. If an unfeeling, unwanted fetus deserves the right to live (and enslaving my bodies in the process), so does every single animal. Quote: No, i'm quite serious about this one. And more importantly, no one our side has really said it to be ok, we do have alot of envirementalists on our side (although your side has more aka Overpopulation). You have ingored my question. If you eat meat, then you are contributing to the mass slautgher of animals. Since you are "Pro-life" i was wondering why don't you seek to protect all "life". Just as i can jusify getting an baortion, I can justify eating meat. Also, about world population: I very much doubt that our already weaken earth could support the almost 30 million people brought onto this world in America alone. Also consider that one person in America consumes the same amount of resources as 20 people in Africa.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Xanaphia00 kp606 Stop killing babies, and I'll become a Vegan, ok 3nodding If Abortion was ever made illegal, then so would I. If an unfeeling, unwanted fetus deserves the right to live (and enslaving my bodies in the process), so does every single animal. Quote: No, i'm quite serious about this one. And more importantly, no one our side has really said it to be ok, we do have alot of envirementalists on our side (although your side has more aka Overpopulation). You have ingored my question. If you eat meat, then you are contributing to the mass slautgher of animals. Since you are "Pro-life" i was wondering why don't you seek to protect all "life". Just as i can jusify getting an baortion, I can justify eating meat. Also, about world population: I very much doubt that our already weaken earth could support the almost 30 million people brought onto this world in America alone. Also consider that one person in America consumes the same amount of resources as 20 people in Africa. Firstly: Why? Because I fight to show equality to the fetus and the people of this planet. I can't show Human Animal equality, no one would ever want to believe that. Secondly: Actually birth rates have dropped. The average woman 60 years ago had 4 kids, now it's lucky if they have one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 25, 2005 11:15 am
If something is 'right' then you have to campaign for it, even if nobody wants to listen. Personally, I believe that life does not have intrinsic value and that organisms are more or less valuable based on their cognitive ability or contribution to society.
Many anti-abortionists believe that once a zygote is formed it must not be destroyed but very few would object to the use of bleaches to kill bacteria, and yet both the zygote and the bacterium are of the same cognitive ability and currently contribute the same thing to society: nothing. Therefore that particular doctrine is speciesist and it's up to the anti-abortionists that espouse it to show that speciesism is valid, without resorting to cognitive ability (since if cognitive ability were really what defined humanity as superior to other organisms they would have to accept that destruction of zygotes is excusable or that destruction of bacteria is inexcusable).
What pro-choicers want to know is why it's inexcusable to destroy [zygote/embryo/fetus] and yet excusable to destroy other organisms of the same cognitive capacity as [zygote/embryo/fetus].
"But it's human!" just doesn't cut it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 26, 2005 3:40 am
Foetus In Fetu If something is 'right' then you have to campaign for it, even if nobody wants to listen. Personally, I believe that life does not have intrinsic value and that organisms are more or less valuable based on their cognitive ability or contribution to society. Many anti-abortionists believe that once a zygote is formed it must not be destroyed but very few would object to the use of bleaches to kill bacteria, and yet both the zygote and the bacterium are of the same cognitive ability and currently contribute the same thing to society: nothing. Therefore that particular doctrine is speciesist and it's up to the anti-abortionists that espouse it to show that speciesism is valid, without resorting to cognitive ability (since if cognitive ability were really what defined humanity as superior to other organisms they would have to accept that destruction of zygotes is excusable or that destruction of bacteria is inexcusable). What pro-choicers want to know is why it's inexcusable to destroy [zygote/embryo/fetus] and yet excusable to destroy other organisms of the same cognitive capacity as [zygote/embryo/fetus]. "But it's human!" just doesn't cut it.
Why can't I say 'The human fetus is human, the animal fetuses are not.'?The statement makes perfect logical sense.
That really is the root of pro-lifedom, isn't it? That the fetus is human? If that reasoning doesn't work for you here, trust me, you'll be unsatisfied with whatever answer I give you. Killing animals is something that the human race has done to provide a source of meat, their embryos/zygotes do not have human DNA, therefore are not human. They don't have human life, nor will they ever. That's what justifies it.
Killing bacteria and killing a fetus are not comparable things. Bacteria will never be a full grown human, like you and me. If bacteria were to, somehow, become human, I'd want to protect that bacteria's right to life. A right to live is something that just should not be toyed with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 26, 2005 7:25 am
Sorry, I still don't understand why a human is more important than a cow just as I don't understand why a white man is more important than a black man. If the doctrine is this: "Humans are more important than animals," then you have to explain why, or else you've just espoused a view that has no real value.
I'll tell you why I think that humans are more important than animals and why it doesn't extend to fetuses of the first trimester. The reason is this: critical and abstract thinking, and fetuses can't do it. I've asked this of people before and I'll ask it again, if a cow were able to think critically and abstractly in a human manner, would it still be less important than a human to you and why? What makes human life so special that even when a human lacks the very thing that sets us apart from animals it is still more important than them?
And if it would be of the same importance as the cow, then why is a fetus so important when it can do those things in a lesser capacity than the cow? Sure you could say "It has the potential to one day," but then again, I have the potential to get a PhD and yet I'm not considered with the same regard as somebody who already has one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 26, 2005 7:43 am
Foetus In Fetu Sorry, I still don't understand why a human is more important than a cow just as I don't understand why a white man is more important than a black man. If the doctrine is this: "Humans are more important than animals," then you have to explain why, or else you've just espoused a view that has no real value. I'll tell you why I think that humans are more important than animals and why it doesn't extend to fetuses of the first trimester. The reason is this: critical and abstract thinking, and fetuses can't do it. I've asked this of people before and I'll ask it again, if a cow were able to think critically and abstractly in a human manner, would it still be less important than a human to you and why? What makes human life so special that even when a human lacks the very thing that sets us apart from animals it is still more important than them? And if it would be of the same importance as the cow, then why is a fetus so important when it can do those things in a lesser capacity than the cow? Sure you could say "It has the potential to one day," but then again, I have the potential to get a PhD and yet I'm not considered with the same regard as somebody who already has one.
A human is more important than a cow, to me, because I relate to humans in my everyday life, and I just hate the idea of human life being taken from someone, for any reason. It's kind of like-- I wouldn't ever eat a dog, because I have a dog, I love my dog, and it's important to me. That's the extent of why I believe human life to be important, and I'm sorry if it seems a weak argument.
In response to your 'critical and abstract thinking' theory, animals can't do it. They can never do it. But the fetus, in time, will be able to do it. Just think of the fetus as being in a state of growth, like a teenager, like a pre-teen, like any other human in a state of growth. I tell ya, if cows were able to think critically, and abstractly, I would become a vegetarian. Intelligent and relatable beings, I cannot eat. It would be on par with me to a fetus, I think. I mean, they're both intelligent beings, they both eventually have the capacity to think abstractly-- I'd see no difference.
As for you saying that potential is not the same as actual, in a sense, I agree. But the fetus is different-- It has the ability to think, in time. Just like when I don't have the capacity to reproduce until a certain age. Certain human qualities come with time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 26, 2005 8:13 am
Mcphee Perhaps it's a personal thing to me. A human is more important than a cow, to me, because I relate to humans in my everyday life, and I just hate the idea of human life being taken from someone, for any reason. It's kind of like-- I wouldn't ever eat a dog, because I have a dog, I love my dog, and it's important to me. That's the extent of why I believe human life to be important, and I'm sorry if it seems a weak argument. As long as you acknowledge that to regard humans as more important for emotional reasons is irrational, then okay. Mcphee In response to your 'critical and abstract thinking' theory, animals can't do it. They can never do it. But the fetus, in time, will be able to do it. Just think of the fetus as being in a state of growth, like a teenager, like a pre-teen, like any other human in a state of growth. I tell ya, if cows were able to think critically, and abstractly, I would become a vegetarian. Intelligent and relatable beings, I cannot eat. It would be on par with me to a fetus, I think. I mean, they're both intelligent beings, they both eventually have the capacity to think abstractly-- I'd see no difference. I agree, if cows were capable of doing that then I couldn't eat them. As it is, they can't and I don't object to eating beef. To be honest, I don't really like beef, but that's rather beside the point. For the same reason, I don't object to abortion. Mcphee As for you saying that potential is not the same as actual, in a sense, I agree. But the fetus is different-- It has the ability to think, in time. Just like when I don't have the capacity to reproduce until a certain age. Certain human qualities come with time. The thing is, it might not even realise that potential given time. It might die or it might be brain-damaged during birth and die soon after or any number of other things might happen. It just isn't practical to regard people as what they might become in future, which is why we don't do it. I'm more concerned with the person who can already think critically and abstractly: the mother, and her wants and needs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 26, 2005 11:13 am
I am against killing of animals for no reason - example, hunting for only pelts and hunting and leaving, we have no need for it and it is a waste. I am not against the killing for food, part of survival, meat is part of the natural human diet and we need it to keep a healthy life style. We are not cannibals, we do not eat other humans, there for I find it wrong to kill a fetus because it is human and deserves its chance at life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 29, 2005 11:10 am
Pandali ...there for I find it wrong to kill a fetus because it is human and deserves its chance at life. Why doesn't the unconcieved child deserve a chance at life?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
