Welcome to Gaia! ::

1) The fetus is alive. It's never dead at any time it is growing in the woman's uterus.

2) The problem is that the fetus is compromising the woman's BODILY INTEGRITY if she does not want it inside of her, not that it's not alive.

3) Torturing animals and removing a fetus are two different things.

4) Personally, if you believe that some life is sacred and some is not, you have to have a very good definition of what "organisms that deserve life" consist of. I could go even further and call you a barbarous torturer for pruning your tree or mowing the lawn if I believed that the sanctity of life extends to plants.

5) Morality aside, veganism is something I could not ever support as a personal choice for me because it's not doing anything to change the bad way that animals are being treated. I would like to see vegans getting together and BUYING OUT those torture farms and moving to more humane treatment of animals. I would like them to put their money and their time where their mouths are and stop it with the emotional ploys and the guilt-tripping of other people. That propaganda is almost as bad as pro-life garbage (especially since MANY of the abuse depicted in PETA propaganda videos are actually perpetrated by PETA MEMBERS to try and shock and guilt people into becoming vegan).

The answer I've commonly seen is that the animals aren't human, so it doesn't matter. Or they seem to think we need meat to live when (nutrition aside) we don't (the existence of veg*ns proves this).

I'm vegetarian, pro-choice, and pro-choice about vegetarianism/veganism. I used to buy into the PETA propaganda, and in fact that's why I became a vegetarian, but then I started to notice the creepy similarities between PETA's propaganda and "pro-life" propaganda. They both use gory, disgusting pictures and guilt trips. I don't like that. I think becoming a vegetarian/vegan should be an empowering decision, not one that you feel guilted into. And I understand that right now, it's not for everyone. But I choose not to participate in the killing of animals for food because I don't need it, I don't want it, and I don't think the conditions these animals are subjected to are anything other than cruel and horrific.

Animals may not be sentient, self-aware, on the same level as human beings, but I believe that to some degree, they do think, feel, and suffer.

Technically, a fetus is alive and abortion does kill it. But the fetus likely cannot even comprehend anything at that point. In the vast majority of abortions, the ability to feel pain has not even developed. And besides, it's not about the fetus. It's about the woman. She can feel, she can think, she can suffer actual pain. I don't believe it is humane to force her to carry out a pregnancy against her will.

(PS: Not all vegetarians/vegans like PETA.In fact, most polls I've seen show the most common reason for being vegetarian as "health.")

I don't think that's exactly what she meant.

I actually see the pro-life movement and "animal rights" organizations such as PETA as very, very similar. They both like to compare their cause to the Holocaust, they both use appeals to emotion and other logical fallacies, they both use gore to shock/sicken people into supporting their causes, and so on. I actually saw a vegan declare that anyone who eats eggs is an ABORTIONIST. They both like to make nasty little videos of the "horror" of slaughter or abortion WITHOUT LIFTING A FINGER TO HELP THE "VICTIM" ("animal rights" activists just tend to commit and assist in these acts to get their "proof" of cruelty). They both make extensive use of propaganda where the facts should be.

The other thing they have in common? They both must be stopped. I don't support the suffering of animals, but I also cannot support what these so-called "animal rights activists" and PETA members are doing/trying to do, especially those who commit terrorism in the name of "animal rights" (sound like anything a pro-lifer has done?).

I don't see either movement doing anything good for animals, especially vegans because the diet does not do ANYTHING to stop the production and sale of animal products. Your lifestyle is not cruelty-free, you know, and it's not stopping others from using animal products.

I agree whole-heartedly with this:



That was a bit long, wasn't it? Heh... sorry, guys. Got up on my soapbox...

Animals think and consciously choose to act just as much as a fetus in the womb thinks and consciously chooses to suck its thumb and "exercise." That is to say, they don't. To date only 4 animals have exhibited self-awareness (which is relevant because to do that implies a brain that is capable of conscious thought on par with humans): The greater apes, dolphins, elephants, and human beings.

So while an animal feels pain, I question whether that's actually relevant if the animal lacks the cognative abilities to reflect upon that pain and desire that the pain stops (and is not merely reacting on involuntary reflex). I don't support animal torture, unnecessary animal pain, but I do see a very distinct difference in the moral standing of those creatures that are self-aware and functioning on a higher, abstract plane of thought and those creatures that do not.

ORLY? I thought that vegans had to go through all sorts of trouble taking artificially created suppliments in order to get the proper nutrition they need, not to mention that without consuming certain proteins muscle maintainence and growth becomes impossible. I thought that's why most vegans have to give up that diet if they want to be active in certain sports that require strenuous muscle activity.


TL biggrin R, summary please? It's a lot of BS and fluff without any real substance and I'm certain that wall of text could be briefly stated in one or two sentances with one or two paragraphs of explanation/support.

E* Nevermind, I think I found the important lines:

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong and wrong. Where does bodily integrity come from? 1. It's a legal thing that animals are not granted. 2. It is a philosophical concept that is derived from social contract theory (in which only moral agents capable of moral thought and moral actions can participate, which excludes any animal that is incapable of knowing right or wrong). As such, torturing animals is only wrong in so far as doing so is harmful to humans and those animals that are capable of moral thought.

Seriously, so many people like to argue with bodily integrity, but so few actually have any basis or understanding of how and why it exists. All it would take is one intelligent pro-lifer to really beat bodily integrity away from most pro-choicers by simply questioning its origins. Only a few pro-choicers, I think, would be capable of making an argument better than "but but but the law says so therefore it MUST be true, even though the law could easily be changed and the current state of the law is not an actual reason to maintain said law."

I believe the right to live extends to born humans who aren't serial killers (I only support the death penalty for serial killers, who have commited multiple felonies). However, I don't support killing animals just for fun or sport. Like hunting for fun, or sociopaths who kill puppies for pleasure. And I don't support killing endangered species, even if there's a reason behind it. I can understand why you support animal rights but not fetal rights, though. Animals aren't invading anyone's bodily integrity.