Can you be vegan without also being pro-life?

[Clueless Git]

So, for (hopefully) the last time...I'm not claiming that embryos should not be included in the 'human' group. They are human and I am saying that there is NOTHING ethically relevant about that. Personhood on the other hand, is a prerequisite for ANY lifeform (regardless of race, species, sex or any other grouping you care to mention) to have interests and desires and to be the subject of injustice. You have repeatedly failed to address this point.

Actualy I asked for clarification on that point Fiver

If you have an argument, that would be sustainable against a non veg*an, that ignores a thing being animal in favour of it having 'personhood' I would be very interested to hear it.

To which you replied ..

If you don't know what it is after reading the comments of both myself and others in this thread, there's no point in me explaining it again.

I fully understand the definitions of personhood that exclude unborn humans from being included within it's 'safety net, as it were, Fiver.

I fully understand the definitions of 'personhood' that have excluded women/children/slaves/entire races/whatever from being included within it's 'safety net' also.

I fully understand that 'personhood' is the prefered ethics of those who seek to remove rights from others and that it has no other purpose.

[Clueless Git]

I don't care how unethical it is.

And I admire nothing more than honesty

[Manzana]

+1 sniveling child...

Sorry Cupid but I don't believe that every time you have had sex you were ready to take the full risks of pregnancy... how could you (for example) assume the risks of leaving your sexual partner damaged by labor? that is not a decision that a man can take... they can however choose to discuss pregnancy and parenthood with their sexual partners before they have sex... but that would be a serious turn off for most people!

I do not believe (or have found any of your arguments convincing to make me change my opinion) that an embryo is a human being with personhood and that is where the difference is between eating meat or having a termination in the early stages of pregnancy. A cow is more sentient than a sperm and an egg combined, she has a central nervous system. And plenty of "sperm and egg ombinations" are aborted naturally.

A sperm will also avoid being damaged and respond to negative stimulus under the microscope... that means it is alive not that it is a human being or that it has a brain or that it can suffer.

On a different note, I would not mind if someone had terminated me while I was an embryo, sure, I would not have experienced many wonderful things but I also would have avoided plenty of suffering.... if on the other hand someone wanted to treat me like a dairy cow, I would mind VERY much.

[cobweb]

I agree with you, Sniv. I'm sure that most people (especially vegans?) are sad at the idea of abortions and would prefer that they never had to happen, but realistically you have to weigh everything up for each single situation, and surely abortion is sometimes the lesser of the evils I think.

[harpy]

I don't care how unethical it is. I never want kids, and I'm not going to be celibate my entire life. Nope. Refuse. Won't do it. Too bad.

I don't see anything unethical about this position. Not bothering with contraception when someone didn't want children would be irresponsible IMO but having an early abortion if they get pregnant accidentally isn't, any more than it's unethical to take the "morning after" pill. Saying people should only have sex if they are willing to have children is positively mediaeval IMO though if someone imposes that requirement on themselves, e.g. for religious reasons, it's their business.

[Clueless Git]

Sorry Cupid but I don't believe that every time you have had sex you were ready to take the full risks of pregnancy...

Of course I was Manzana.

The risk when I was pro-abortion was simply that the woman would get all "stupid and sentimental" and start the old "but it's a baby I don't want to kill it .." type nonsense.

I would definitely have abandoned anyone whom I got pregnant in that phase of my life so the risk was entirely as to whether I could bully/cajole/persuade a woman into abortion or get saddled with 16-18 years of wasted beer'n'bird'n'fags money.

That risk I took, knowingly and calculatedly, everytime I 'bumped-uglies' with anyone.

The risk since I became pro-life is simply that sex sometimes results in kiddies. Three times I hit the loaded chamber in that game of Russian Roulette and it would have been four but for an ectopic pregnancy.

I do not believe (or have found any of your arguments convincing to make me change my opinion) that an embryo is a human being with personhood and that is where the difference is between eating meat or having a termination in the early stages of pregnancy.

Not, in the very nicest of ways, my concern Manzana.

My concern is simply to keep checking that there are no arguments that would reconvert me.

None so far. But my understanding of peoples 'need' to have sex without consequences is expanding constantly. Apart from meat eating I don't think I can name one human 'need' over which people fight so hard to keep it 'right' and challenge anything that could possibly make it wrong.

[harpy]

On a different note, I would not mind if someone had terminated me while I was an embryo, sure, I would not have experienced many wonderful things but I also would have avoided plenty of suffering.... if on the other hand someone wanted to treat me like a dairy cow, I would mind VERY much.

Same here.

I'm also not too keen on the idea of being born as a result of "Russian Roulette", CS. I believe I was the result of an intentional act of procreation and I'm glad about that. I wouldn't at all like the idea of a woman having been through an unwanted pregnancy to produce me.

[cobweb]

^ same here, too, better no life than a life on enforced suffering (re the comparison with dairy cows).

This is why, in my opinion, there can never be a clear cut argument either way on the abortion topic. As humans the most we can do, I believe, is to take responsibility for our actions, e.g use the best birth control we are able to use, and take decisions about whether or not to raise children very seriously. As a side note, I have always had problems with various forms of contraception, the birth control pill makes me ill and severely increase my Migraines, I tried a coil but it gave me pain, I'm sensitive to Latex aswell. I tried very hard to get a sterilisation in my late 20s (after having my son) but doctors thought I was too young (*sigh*).

[VagabondVegan]

Has anyone actually mentioned/addressed the difference between morality and legality? Haven't seen anyone say anything about finding it morally abhorrent but feeling that it should be something that a person can get safely and legally if they so wish...just saying...

[harpy]

I agree there's a difference between morality and legality, VagabondVegan. I don't find early abortions morally abhorrent, personally, but I'm surprised that some of those who do want to make it illegal, because as I think I said several pages ago backstreet abortions have much worse effects on all concerned than legal ones, and making abortions hard to get also increases the probabilty of late abortions.

[RubyDuby]

I would definitely have abandoned anyone whom I got pregnant in that phase of my life so the risk was entirely as to whether I could bully/cajole/persuade a woman into abortion or get saddled with 16-18 years of wasted beer'n'bird'n'fags money. That risk I took, knowingly and calculatedly, everytime I 'bumped-uglies' with anyone.

and this just strengthens my opinion that men have no right to be anti-abortion. It sucks and is unfair to put that on every guy, but too bad. It's not your problem so you have no right to tell me what's ethical and what's not.

[The Queen]

I don't care how unethical it is. I never want kids, and I'm not going to be celibate my entire life. Nope. Refuse. Won't do it. Too bad.

And expecting that of any human being is asking A LOT.

You could get sterilized

[Clueless Git]

and this just strengthens my opinion that men have no right to be anti-abortion. It sucks and is unfair to put that on every guy, but too bad. It's not your problem so you have no right to tell me what's ethical and what's not.

In those days, Ruby, I would have wholeheartedly agreed.

I wanted as much nooky as I could get and I would have rallied very feircely against anyone, male of female, who opposed my 'right' to shag like a rabbit without ever getting saddled down by some woman and *her kid.

Have to say this though: How a pro-abortion male being a total and utter ass-hole (as I was and I was definitely NOT alone) is an argument against males being anti-abortion completely baffles me.

[Clueless Git]

This is why, in my opinion, there can never be a clear cut argument either way on the abortion topic.

Time for a new years day 'olive twig' I think ..

I totally agree with that!

Just under five years ago my daughter got pregnant at the age of 15 and came under massive pressure from the fathers family to abort the baby and she turned to me for the final advice.

I couldn't, in all honesty, give a clear cut answer either for or against.

Thanks almost entirely to marathon slug-fests like this one I was able to give the strongest arguments both for and against though and other than that my daughter had to make up her own mind.

M'daughter is happy with her decision and m'grandaughter (apart from having now lost no less than three 'daddies' in her four short years) is a very happy little girl.

For reasons that would be very difficult to explain; If there had been one clear cut argument, either for against, that happy circumstance would never have come about.

Personaly I put the happy outcome down to my daughter having had choice, having had choice and nothing being left about the choice she made (nor the choice she could equaly have made) on which she was anything less than fully informed.

Too much pro-life tilt and her free and fully informed choice would have been circumvented and, likewise too much pro-abortion tilt the same.

[RubyDuby]

I don't understand your previous response, so I'll just leave it.

But to this last post, you sound pro-choice...

[Clueless Git]

I don't understand your previous response, so I'll just leave it.

But to this last post, you sound pro-choice...

I am genuinely pro choice and genuinely pro-life, yes, Ruby.

To be against abortion where pregnancy would end in a death is not a genuine pro-life position.

To circumvert, or pervert, choice by witholding or suppressing the fullest possible information is not a genuine pro-choice position.

This may not be easy to follow but I genuinely feel that abortion being available on demand is an open floodgate to the type of bullying/coercion (i.e. fully intentional circumvention of genuine choice) that I once employed myself.

I have also encountered multiple women (counselled them, almost) who made the choice to abort and found stuff out after the event that they say would have affected their choice if they had known it before.

Dodgy area killing ones own child is and all I am saying is that both sides of the argument have an obligation to ensure that anyone who has that choice (it exists illegaly if not legaly and that is completely and totaly true) is both total protected from any form of co-ercion and is fully and and completely informed of the hardest 'truths' on both sides of the divide.

[fiver]

"I fully understand the definitions of personhood that exclude unborn humans from being included within it's 'safety net, as it were, Fiver."

Embryos, plants, bacteria and many other forms of life. All those things which are necessarily excluded WITHOUT FAVOUR in order to maintain logical consistency given the premise - the conditions which must be met in order for any lifeform to be the subject of injustice. This is not about justifying lifestyle choices, it is about philosophical enquiry - exploring issues analytically in order to better understand the basis of our beliefs, habits and ourselves.

Pro-lifers must champion plant and bacteria rights. Or, kill themselves. Or, resort to prejudice in order to justify contradictory opinions re: harm and killing. Or, fall back on subjective religious explanations. Or, deny that answers are needed to questions. This is the realm of intellectual bankruptcy.

"I fully understand the definitions of 'personhood' that have excluded women/children/slaves/entire races/whatever from being included within it's 'safety net' also."

I'm sure that some people have tried to argue that women/children/slaves/entire races do not possess personhood. They most certainly DO. There is no rational argument that anyone can use to support this belief which does not undermine their own claim to personhood. Some people are ignorant, malicious and/or make factually untrue and contradictory statements. This says nothing about the soundness of personhood or any other theory.

"I fully understand that 'personhood' is the prefered ethics of those who seek to remove rights from others and that it has no other purpose."

Until you start championing the rights of plants, you don't have a lot of credibility. The main reasons you and others accord special treatment to embryos are species prejudice and anthropocentric religions.

[SlackAlice]

c

[cobweb]

hrm, cryptic...........

[SlackAlice]

Have to say this though: How a pro-abortion male being a total and utter ass-hole (as I was and I was definitely NOT alone) is an argument against males being anti-abortion completely baffles me.

Baffled here too Ruby

I know a couple of pro-abortion males .. both , strangely , are total and utter ass-holes .

One of them is my friends husband who does not believe in the use of traditional birth control due to religious beliefs. He beats the pro -abortion drum VERY loudly but then he would because it allows him to have unprotected sex with his wife as often as he wishes in the sure knowledge that his choice of birth control is readily available if he pays enough. To date his wife has had four abortions.

The other is my own ex husband. He didnt beat the drum at all until he found that I was pregnant following a 'marital rape' . Faced with the idea of fathering another child when he couldnt deal emotionally or financially with the two we already had, made him beat the drum very loudly too.

[SlackAlice]

hrm, cryptic...........

noo cobweb...

Just me being a total prat and messing up a posting!!!

[VagabondVegan]

Have to say this though: How a pro-abortion male being a total and utter ass-hole (as I was and I was definitely NOT alone) is an argument against males being anti-abortion completely baffles me.

Thats what is called an 'ad homenin', a logical fallacy and one of the most dumb ones to make. Trying to argue a point by attacking a person or group of people on the ground of their actions and personality.

[SlackAlice]

Thats what is called an 'ad homenin', a logical fallacy and one of the most dumb ones to make. Trying to argue a point by attacking a person or group of people on the ground of their actions and personality.

I think it just a fact that there are total and utter ass-holes on both sides of any argument . Worse still there are ass-holes who have no geniune viewpoint either way but will happily pick up any banner that conveniently fits their purpose at any given time.

[Clueless Git]

Thats what is called an 'ad homenin', a logical fallacy and one of the most dumb ones to make. Trying to argue a point by attacking a person or group of people on the ground of their actions and personality.

To the very best of my understanding an 'ad-hominen' attack has to be against the other party not against yourself VV.

You were aware that the person I called a "total and utter ass-hole" was none other than myself?

[Clueless Git]

Until you start championing the rights of plants, you don't have a lot of credibility.

Hmmm, I didnt know that you had to champion the rights of plants in order to champion the rights of animals including or excluding human beings Fiver.

Are you absolutely 100% sure that logic is correct?

[leedsveg]

You were aware that the person I called a "total and utter ass-hole" was none other than myself?

I know I said I'd left the thread Cupid but yet again you're wrong. I don't believe you're remotely like how you describe yourself.



Leedsveg

[VagabondVegan]

Oi Oi Oi as I said I am not involved in the actual debate just stating that that kind of argument would be called an ad homenin, not sure if you could make an ad homenin against yourself but don't see why you cant saying that you yourself can't do or say something on the grounds of a personal trait such as being 'an asshole' seems to be an ad homenin.

[cobweb]

^ erm why post in a thread unless you want to be part of the debate?

[VagabondVegan]

becauseeee as I've said a few times I am interested in the actual debate more than the topic, the different opinions and most importantly how they are argued. Guess by making comments on how people make points is being part of the debate but least I don't have to go back to my 2 years of college debating this very same topic incessantly shouting opinions and who ever said it loudest won, that was my college at least hehe. And besides its education for me I duno about anyone else to make points on how to debate rather than just having an opinion which takes little or no skill hehe.

[cobweb]

To be honest I think its irritating . I don't personally want my debating 'style' analysed by college graduates, thanks, that's not why I come here.

[VagabondVegan]

dawwww no fun but ok I'll stop

[cobweb]

oh now you're making me feel bad .............go on then, have your fun

[VagabondVegan]

Nah don't worry about it really! If you had just said you didn't like it I would have stopped I mean I'm not evil hehe

[fiver]

"Hmmm, I didnt know that you had to champion the rights of plants in order to champion the rights of animals including or excluding human beings Fiver.

Are you absolutely 100% sure that logic is correct?"

If your stated reason for objecting to the treatment of X is that harming and killing are wrong, then it logically follows that you should object to the same treatment when it is applied to Y, if Y is the same in relevant respects (in this case, can also be harmed and killed). This is a common principle of justice - treating like cases alike. Those who are not prepared to accept ALL of the implications of their own statements should revise them. Group membership is not ethically relevant.

However, I've realised that you are not rational or consistent, so...

[snivelingchild]

.

[snivelingchild]

You could get sterilized

sterilization for women is invasive surgery. (and often refused if you don't have kids) As my partner does not want to get sterilized, I have an IUD which is pretty darn safe. but this is not about me. I got an iud because I finally had health insurance. With no insurance, $600 plus doctors costs isn't easy to cover. And even then, it fails occasionally ( usually only if a doctor isn't that experienced with them) and not all women's bodies accept them.

[Clueless Git]

If your stated reason for objecting to the treatment of X is that harming and killing are wrong, then it logically follows that you should object to the same treatment when it is applied to Y, if Y is the same in relevant respects (in this case, can also be harmed and killed). This is a common principle of justice - treating like cases alike. Those who are not prepared to accept ALL of the implications of their own statements should revise them. Group membership is not ethically relevant.

However, I've realised that you are not rational or consistent, so...

First off I'm not at all interested in joining in with any 'mud slinging' Fiver.

SlackAlice and myself spent hours (well, it felt like hours) poring over the argument you are making here last night and we think we've made progress in understanding what you are saying ..

You are arguing that as you see an unborn human as not having 'personhood' that it is moraly inconsistent to defend the human unborn unless they also defend everything else (bacteria, plants etc) that you see as not having personhood either?

[Manzana]

I think the point is that the fact that it belongs to the human species does not automatically grant an embryo personhood... so if what you are against is harming life, then you should be against harming ALL life (including plants, bacteria, sperm etc).

Perhaps you are arguing that belonging to the human species automatically grants you personhood which is attributing the qualities of the whole to a part of that whole: i.e. an embryo belongs to the human species therefore it has personhood. This is an statement that makes as much sense as "a sperm belongs to the human species therefore it has persoonhood" or "a human hand has personhood because it belongs to a human" (with this one, you might be again tempted to say that this is the case, but in fact, if the hand was separated from the body we would all see that this is a non sensical statement).

Another example of this... for example what are your feelings on IVF treatment? The procedure involves fertilising several eggs with sperm and then implanting some of them inside the mother. Are those cells not implanted and therefore killed or frozen also unborn humans? I guess maybe... but do they have personhood? Should we all go and have massive protests outside IVF clinics because they are "killing" "unborn humans"?

[harpy]

Perhaps I've missed something, but I'm having trouble seeing how "personhood" figures in an argument that vegans must also be pro-life. Is the idea that it's not OK to abort human foetuses (because of their personhood) but would be OK to abort other animal foetuses, and if so where does veganism come into it? Or are you claiming that non-human animals have personhood as well? If neither of these, why is personhood important?

[cobweb]

I think the trouble with this thread is the title.
CS says he's 'pro life' but also 'pro choice', which I would also say applies to me (e.g in the bigger picture I am pro ALL life but I am not 100% anti ALL abortion).
'Pro Life', in the context of abortion, is usually taken to mean 'anti abortion' though, so I think this whole thread feels a bit confused/confusing.

[Clueless Git]

Perhaps I've missed something, but I'm having trouble seeing how "personhood" figures in an argument that vegans must also be pro-life. Is the idea that it's not OK to abort human foetuses (because of their personhood) but would be OK to abort other animal foetuses, and if so where does veganism come into it? Or are you claiming that non-human animals have personhood as well? If neither of these, why is personhood important?

Who was that question to Harpy?

If to me: I cannot fathom the relevance of personhood at all. Basicaly that being because I can see that trying to stake a claim for 'personhood' across the entire animal domain (which would have to include stuff like molluscs and insects?) would be borderline, if not completely, insane.

Trying to stake that claim on the basis of "it is animal and alive and thus has 'personhood' ... errrrr ... apart from this one thing which is indisputably animal and alive but lacks 'personhood' anyway" would be complete and utter lunacy.

If I were trying to justify the killing-on-demand that abortion-on-demand is I would be dropping 'personhood' like it were the very hottest of very hot stones.

[Clueless Git]

I think the trouble with this thread is the title.
CS says he's 'pro life' but also 'pro choice', which I would also say applies to me (e.g in the bigger picture I am pro ALL life but I am not 100% anti ALL abortion).
'Pro Life', in the context of abortion, is usually taken to mean 'anti abortion' though, so I think this whole thread feels a bit confused/confusing.

You are going to get splinters in your bottom with all this fence sitting Cobbers ..

Neither camp is arguing against 'emergency' situation abortion so saying "I am not 100% anti ALL abortion" is a completely meaningless statement as absolutely no one else here is either.

[harpy]

Who was that question to Harpy?

If to me: I cannot fathom the relevance of personhood at all.

Sorry, I see from rereading the messages that you were only talking about personhood because other people had raised it.

Although unlike you I am in favour of the law allowing women to decide for themselves whether to have (early) abortions or not, my position doesn't have anything to do with a concept of personhood either.

[Clueless Git]

Sorry, I see from rereading the messages that you were only talking about personhood because other people had raised it.

I think the "whom is arguing what", on that front, is becoming almost impossibly confusing.

Although unlike you I am in favour of the law allowing women to decide for themselves whether to have (early) abortions or not, my position doesn't have anything to do with a concept of personhood either.

What is that position based on, if I may politely enquire, Harpy?

[fiver]

"You are arguing that as you see an unborn human as not having 'personhood' that it is moraly inconsistent to defend the human unborn unless they also defend everything else (bacteria, plants etc) that you see as not having personhood either?"

Partly. I think I explained the point better in my last post. Saying that you oppose harming and killing and then harming and killing plants IS inconsistent. Like cases must be treated alike. There is no getting around those words. Manzana's thoughts are much the same as mine. I'd like to hear someone come up with an alternative theory of justice (which doesn't involve prejudice or other arbitrary exclusions, inconsistency etc...) not based on personhood that protects animals and doesn't imply plant rights.

"Basicaly that being because I can see that trying to stake a claim for 'personhood' across the entire animal domain (which would have to include stuff like molluscs and insects?) would be borderline, if not completely, insane."

I accept that molluscs and insects are borderline, if not below the line. As with the development of the embryo there is a grey area which prevents us from marking an exact cutoff point that can be used in the case of animals. This will undoubtedly lead people to form different opinions outside the extremes (definitely over or under the line). There is no room for disagreement where the extremes are concerned.

You say this is lunacy. I'd like to note that the foremost thinkers and writers on animal issues, liberation and rights - Peter Singer, Tom Regan and Gary Francione - all share and advocate this same view. Trust me when I say that they have thought about these issues and done more for discourse about animals collectively than most on this forum. They have considered more of the 'fine print' than anyone. If you do disagree with their position, then you are pitting yourself against some formidable thinkers and arguments. They could argue otherwise, but they realise that doing so would create logical holes and inconsistencies that would undermine their cause.

[cobweb]

You are going to get splinters in your bottom with all this fence sitting Cobbers ..


Neither camp is arguing against 'emergency' situation abortion so saying "I am not 100% anti ALL abortion" is a completely meaningless statement as absolutely no one else here is either.

to point 1) Not really, *I* know what my position is, but it's hard to clarify it I suppose. I am certainly very uncomfortable with the entire concept of abortion, or in fact any kind of 'killing', but I'm also very uncomfortable with the concept of forcing women to have unwanted babies which may not be nurtured sufficiently.


to point 2) ahh, that's where I got confused because I honestly thought that 'pro-life' (at least in the context of abortion) = anti ALL abortion.

[cobweb]

FOUND ONLINE:

"Pro-life individuals generally believe that human life should be valued either from fertilization or implantation until natural death. The contemporary pro-life movement is typically, but not exclusively, associated with Christian morality (especially in the United States), and has influenced certain strains of bioethical utilitarianism.[1] From that viewpoint, any action which destroys an embryo or fetus kills a person. Any deliberate destruction of human life is considered ethically or morally wrong and is not considered to be mitigated by any benefits to others, as such benefits are coming at the expense of the life of a person. In some cases, this belief extends to opposing abortion of fetuses that would almost certainly expire within a short time after birth, such as anencephalic fetuses.

Some pro-life advocates oppose certain forms of birth control, particularly hormonal contraception such as Emergency contraception (ECPs), and copper IUDs which prevent the implantation of an embryo. Because they believe that the term "pregnancy" should be defined so as to begin at fertilization, they refer to these contraceptives as abortifacients.[2] The Catholic Church endorses this view,[3] but the possibility that hormonal contraception has post-fertilization effects is disputed within the scientific community".



Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/pro-life#ixzz19uMCCktI



I just had a google for a definition of 'Pro-Life' and found the above. Interestingly the above also mentions opposition to (certain forms of) contraceptions, so it seems Manazana's point wasn't too far fetched.

[Clueless Git]

Partly. I think I explained the point better in my last post. Saying that you oppose harming and killing and then harming and killing plants IS inconsistent.

I can't agree Fiver.

To say "I kill nothing within the animal domain" is not inconsistent with killing plants.

To say "I kill nothing within the animal domain" is inconsistent with killing a living human.

Like cases must be treated alike. There is no getting around those words. Manzana's thoughts are much the same as mine. I'd like to hear someone come up with an alternative theory of justice (which doesn't involve prejudice or other arbitrary exclusions, inconsistency etc...) not based on personhood that protects animals and doesn't imply plant rights.

Veganism meets that definition.

Nothing within the animal domain has to have 'personhood' to qualify for the simple justice of being able to complete its life cycle once its life cycle has started and veganism does not imply plant rights.

Is veganism guilty of "prejudice or other arbitrary exclusions, inconsistency etc ..."?

I accept that molluscs and insects are borderline, if not below the line. As with the development of the embryo there is a grey area which prevents us from marking an exact cutoff point that can be used in the case of animals.

But vegans have no cut off point with animals Fiver.

The stage of development is irrelevant and the ultimate level of development that any individual of any species can reach is also irrelevant.

Is it not using "prejudice or other arbitrary exclusions, inconsistency etc ..." to argue that our own unborn are the one and only allowable exception?

You say this is lunacy. I'd like to note that the foremost thinkers and writers on animal issues, liberation and rights - Peter Singer, Tom Regan and Gary Francione - all share and advocate this same view. Trust me when I say that they have thought about these issues and done more for discourse about animals collectively than most on this forum. They have considered more of the 'fine print' than anyone. If you do disagree with their position, then you are pitting yourself against some formidable thinkers and arguments. They could argue otherwise, but they realise that doing so would create logical holes and inconsistencies that would undermine their cause.

Fiver ...

The most formidable thinkers in the world cannot argue that killing another living animal is anyones right without creating logical holes and inconsistencies.

If that could be done then an argument that has no logical holes or inconsistencies would exist against veganism.

Are we agreed that no such argument, one free of logical holes or inconsistencies, exists against veganism?

[cobweb]

I must say I agree with CS on this one, Fiver, the plant argument is just silly!.

[Clueless Git]

to point 1) Not really, *I* know what my position is, but it's hard to clarify it I suppose. I am certainly very uncomfortable with the entire concept of abortion, or in fact any kind of 'killing', but I'm also very uncomfortable with the concept of forcing women to have unwanted babies which may not be nurtured sufficiently.

'Lo Cobbers

Was it me and thee who had a short and freindly exchange over 'no perfect choices following imperfect choices'?

Making babies that we don't want is kinda one of those situations.

I must say I agree with CS on this one, Fiver, the plant argument is just silly!

Meat eaters use that one a lot.