Abortion

[Enchantress]

24 months is a bit out of the question though. I don't think many doctors would be happy to "abort" a 15 month old child ;).

[petunia]

They may well be.

My point was - it doesn't matter what you call it.

yes, but its not about what "you call it".
its what IT IS.

[Enchantress]

24 months is a bit out of the question though. I don't think many doctors would be happy to "abort" a 15 month old child ;).

Although, if you count this (http://www.mymultiplesclerosis.co.uk/misc/zahra-aboutalib.html) as an abortion it can happen at 552 months.

[snivelingchild]

Omg...

[Frank]

Although, if you count this (http://www.mymultiplesclerosis.co.uk/misc/zahra-aboutalib.html) as an abortion it can happen at 552 months.

What an incredible story!

[Frank]

yes, but its not about what "you call it".
its what IT IS.

Yes - life.

[petunia]

ok whatever. im not going to go back and forth with you anymore. we obviously have different opinions and that is fine.

i would also like to say that i, as well, believe that IN THEORY abortion is "wrong". of course it would be great if no fetuses (to become future babies) had to be killed.

but we live in the real world. its just like how IN THEORY veganism is "right". and yes, for us on the forum, veganism is right, and possible. but in reality, the majority of the people in the world are not going to become vegan. thats why the "free range, organic" thing is a good idea, and a step in the right direction. its not perfect, but its an improvment.

i believe that for the majority of people, small steps are the only way to go. its much more important to provide education for people to reduce the amount of unwanted pregnancies (i know someone else already mentioned this) that it is to "say abortion is wrong!"

in a perfect world, no fetuses would be killed, and no animals would be killed (and no humans would be killed!), but the world we live in is far from perfect, and i believe that if we were to take away women's rights over their own bodies, the fetuses and animals would have no hope at all.

[missbettie]

^ amen sista!! could not have said it more beautifully myself.

[Frank]

in a perfect world, no fetuses would be killed, and no animals would be killed (and no humans would be killed!), but the world we live in is far from perfect, and i believe that if we were to take away women's rights over their own bodies, the fetuses and animals would have no hope at all.

Yes - we both differ in our views, which is fine. If we all agreed - this thread would have finished a long time ago...

I didn't understand the reasoning or point above that if women's rights were taken away - animals would have no hope at all?

[missbettie]

maybe because women wouldn't be able to choose whether or not they are vegan? i dunno...

[petunia]

Yes - we both differ in our views, which is fine. If we all agreed - this thread would have finished a long time ago...

I didn't understand the reasoning or point above that if women's rights were taken away - animals would have no hope at all?

what i mean is that if we dont even have basic HUMAN rights, (for women OR men to have control over their own bodies), than the idea or thought that animals may one day be liberated is most likely out of the question, dont you agree?

i mean if we've taken away HUMAN BEINGS rights (most people are driven by/believe in specism), then its pretty unlikely, hilarious even, to think that animals will be given "rights" anytime thereafter.

[missbettie]

good point petunia.

[dreama]

In the UK it is 24 weeks - but it can be increased to 39 weeks if the baby carries a disability.

Some children survive from 21/22 weeks onwards.

That is terrible. I actually feel more strongly about aborting disabled babies. I feel more strongly about selective abortions in general but since I am myself disabled I see the selective abortion of disabled fetuses as the worst of the lot. Since it sends a clear message that disabled people are not wanted. If people were allowed to abort female fetuses at a later date then male ones I'm sure people would be up in arms but they seem to find murdering the disabled quite acceptible. In fact wasn't it Peter Singer who said it was ok to murder the disabled even after birth. And to make it worse he is linked to the animal rights movement which makes us all seem like we care more about animals then people.

[dreama]

i mean if we've taken away HUMAN BEINGS rights (most people are driven by/believe in specism), then its pretty unlikely, hilarious even, to think that animals will be given "rights" anytime thereafter.

But we already take away human being rights. Women in the west have plenty of rights. I don't ever really feel discriminted against for being female but I often feel discriminated against because I am deaf blind. People expect me to have a minder with me all the time. Old people also get discriminated against. Also over seas there is a lot of human rights violations.

I see a ban on abortion actually IMPROVES human rights.

Nobody has a right to kill another human being at whatever stage of developement they are in.

It is causing a lot of ill. Causing more crime I think. Sending a message to people that if somebody (in this case an unborn baby) is inconvienencing you it's ok to kill them. They may consider to extend that to people after birth too. So anybody anywhere who is inconvienienced can have the right to kill someone because of it. Because in my mind, that is what the abortion mentality leads to.

I've also noticed in the feminist movements sometimes when a woman kills her husband/children they are more sypathetic to them then when a man does the same thing.

[dreama]

I highly doubt that ;)

I meant weeks sorry. A baby can't be more then 9 months I guess as that's when they get born.

[Frank]

what i mean is that if we dont even have basic HUMAN rights, (for women OR men to have control over their own bodies), than the idea or thought that animals may one day be liberated is most likely out of the question, dont you agree?

i mean if we've taken away HUMAN BEINGS rights (most people are driven by/believe in specism), then its pretty unlikely, hilarious even, to think that animals will be given "rights" anytime thereafter.

You stated women only in your first post.

If I can please reply to that first. We could look at countries that have banned abortions to see if in those countries - animals fared any better then in countries where there wasn't a ban.

I can't see if women worldwide were banned from abortion that that would change their mentality towards animals, whatever their mentality is on that subject. A ban on abortion does not imply taking away every human right, or that the world would slip into some kind of disaster because of it, and that animals would therefore not stand a chance of good welfare.

I also believe that the population of meat eaters in the world outways veg*ns. I believe the following:

The majority of women having abortions eat meat.
The majority of woman not having abortions eat meat.


Secondly you refer to men, and if their rights were also impounded in some way. Maybe a comparison could be made to the 'forced' sterilisation of groups of men in India - courtesy of the Indian government, some years ago. These men had rights taken away from them by manipulation - by their government. Did they treat their animals any diffferently because of it?


I think Dreama makes a good statement.

It implies that if your society protects life to the full, then maybe that will be replicated better in the welfare of your animals, as life is being valued more highly.

[Frank]

This is an interesting take on human rights.

Spain - a catholic country that allows abortions - is set to give human rights to apes.

You could say that this country offers middle ground to the discussion above.

You can read the whole article here:

http://veganforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=478630#post478630

[Fuhzy]

I'm gonna go ahead and assume I'm still the only pro-lifer on this board? :P

[Frank]

I'm gonna go ahead and assume I'm still the only pro-lifer on this board? :P

There are plenty on this thread - just look back through the posts if you get time.

[Aradia]

I'm gonna go ahead and assume I'm still the only pro-lifer on this board? :P


Are you also pro-life regarding those sitting on Death Row?

[petunia]

Are you also pro-life regarding those sitting on Death Row?

I am.

[RubyDuby]

I'm gonna go ahead and assume I'm still the only pro-lifer on this board? :P
the 2 last posters before u were both pro-life!

[Fuhzy]

Reviewing the thread, I am astounded! I have never heard of another pro-life vegan :D .


Anyway, to answer someone above, yes I am also against the death penalty. I am against the death of all beings to the furthest extent possible.

Also, I am interested in hearing how pro-choice people would argue against the concept of the zygote being subhuman? To me, a sperm is 1/2 a person, and an egg is the other 1/2. Once they join, then you have a full person. Arguments against this?

[bryzee86]

It is not "sub"-human. It is pre-human.

[dreama]

It is not "sub"-human. It is pre-human.

No, it's neither Pre human or subhuman. It's the earliest stages of human life. When the baby is at this stage I'm not too sure where I stand as I'm not sure how much is felt at this stage of development.

Frank: I'm glad that the Primates in spain won't be tested on any more. Shame about Zoos though but at least they won't be tortured in laboritories any more.

Fuhzy: Yes there are a few of us pro lifers. I'm afraid I feel more strongly about embroyo's and fetuses once they have developed a body. There are so many babies in womb being murdered when they are at later stages of development. Just because they are disabled. I think that is terrible. Of course it is wrong to kill at any stage really but I feel more upset if I hear about a 30 week old disabled fetus being killed then a few day old Zyote, sorry.