Can you be vegan without also being pro-life?

[Manzana]

I am not sure what your point is...

So going back to the original question (and I am going to try very hard that this is my last post):

Killing animals for food is not comparable to being pro choice, the reason being that an animal is a self aware (or at the very least sentient due to having a central nervous system) entity and an embryo is not.

An embryo (yes even a human embryo) is not a human as it has no central nervous system, no brain, no spine and no autonomy to live outside a womb on its own. Certainly from a biological point of view, it can be argueed that it is more like a sperm than a human.

If you are against killing all life (as i believe the buddhist phylosophy advocates?) then of course, the logical conclusion is not to be pro choice. but then, I would arguee the logical conclusion is also not to take antibiotics (as you can see from the name they are ANTI life), not to masturbate (think about all those poor unborn half humans!), not to drive a car (as tonnes of insects are always murdered in your wake), not to dig for tubers etc...

Men should not try to interfere with legislation that affect women's bodies just like women should not try to interfere with legislation about men's bodies. If a man is concerned about an embryo, there are very easy steps that he can take to take care of the part of the embryo that is his responsibility (having intercourse only with a woman that wants/is prepared to have a baby, abstinence and vasectomy come to mind though I would not advocate to impose any of these on men's bodies just like I would not want them to advocate legislation to foce a woman to go through an unwanted pregnancy)

Noone in this thread has advocated abortion on demand and neither am I. Noone has said that terminating a pregnancy is an easy decision but it is one that women should have the right to make. I do not want to be responsible for any women having to end their life in a dodgy back alley clinic having an ilegal abortion (or with some coat hangers inside them), I much rather she makes a choice and she learns from her mistake (or from making the right decision according to her circumstances).

End of my contributions to this thread

[Clueless Git]

I don't dismiss Mother Theresa because 'I want abortion on demand' (do I!?) and her arguments 'oppose something that I want'. I dismiss her because she makes numerous assertions and she doesn't back them up with supporting arguments. She fails to address the point that in order to be wronged, a living thing must be self-aware and have interests and conscious desires that can be thwarted.

As I said Fiver MT's 'insight' would make no more sense to someone commited to defending abortion on demand than the equivelant arguments for veganism would have upon someone commited to defending meat eating.

The equivelant argument for veganism would be something along the lines of that there is benefit to self in certain behaviours and detriment to self in other behaviours.

I would be VERY interested to know if other vegans agree with this btw ..

The primary benefit I feel I (we?) get from veganism is that it makes me a 'better' person, as it were. We have to excercise restraint (not for benefit to self but for the benefit of others) in areas that non-vegans don't. We have to go without things (not for benefit to self but for the benefit of others) where a non vegan would simply have whatever he/she wants. We have to think (not for benefit to self but for the benefit of others) over matters on which ne'er a passing thought (other than "I want/me! me! Meee!") would cross a non vegans mind. We have to constantly practice refraining from harming those whom, austensibly, we could, if we so wished, harm with total impunity.

The upshot of that is that I (we?) see things differently to non vegans;

We see that violence to animals is also violence to the land; That violence to land is also violence to all those (human and non animal) who live on the land. We can't see a 'juicy steak' without seeing a fat cow and we can't see a fat cow without seeing a skinny child and we can't see a skinny child without seeing the 'violence' of feeding animals on food that we should be feeding to starving kids. When we see the violence to animals, et-al, of meat I see that this is violence towards those who (through non awareness) end up finding their livelihoods in meat. We can't hear meat-eaters come up with the bull-crap that meat eaters come up with without seeing that the part of the human mind that is capable of 'clarity' is a victim of the whole nasty business too.

Most importantly of all I (we?) see this: That the mindless state that enables human violence towards animals is the exact same mindless state that enables all human upon human violences (environmental destruction, human starvation despite adequate food resources, elitism, nationalism, class priveledge, racism, sexism, capitalism et-al ...) too.

From that my addled mind (I fully expect this NOT be understood, btw) reasons that to practice violence against others (ANY others) is absolutely inseperable from bring violence upon ourselves.

All of that, I (we?) believe, is supported entirely by empirical evidence that only a non-vegan could possibly fail to see?

Mothers Theresa's imperical evidences fall under much the same heading; Obvious to those who's practice of restraint/compassion includes the unborn and totaly incomprehensible to others, I'm afraid to say.

[leedsveg]

[Cupid. I've deleted my posting 'cos I thought you were questioning my veganism but rereading your posting again, you weren't. Sorry, it's the cold weather.]

lv

[Korn]

Warning: long post.

With all due respect, I don't think a cell (egg/sperm) is a human anymore than a man + a gun = a half dead person. It's all about the very process that leads to a change (birth/death).

But as men, we can't invade a woman's psyche and soul and tell her what to do, although we may feel 100% that a fetus/baby is as much a part of something we have created/given life to, as it is a result of what she has created.

And, re. the parallel between parasites and unborn humans: we all started out as 'parasites' - and even after the babies are born, they could be described as parasites, since human babies in so many ways are helpless (compared with most other animals). But I don't think the 'parasite' aspect of this changes much.

The primary benefit I feel I (we?) get from veganism is that it makes me a 'better' person, as it were. We have to excercise restraint (not for benefit to self but for the benefit of others) in areas that non-vegans don't.

Since I don't feel a desire/need to eat animal products, I don't feel I have to exercise restraint. And as I don't want to eat dead birds found on the street, road kill, or my neighbor's cat when it one day dies - I don't think veganism at it's core has to do with cruelty either. I wouldn't have eaten sheep, cows or pigs either, even if they had papers on being treated like princess and princesses.

I'm still trying to find out the link between abortion and eating meat. I may get there soon. So far, I know one thing: veganism is about how we look at others' life and suffering in normal situations - not in emergency situations. Maybe a vegan would eat a dead human if that was his only way to survive an accident, and then go back to avoid animal products when not in an emergency/life/death situation afterwards.

I choose to think that abortion only is something a women would consider in an emergency situation. If I had a wife/gf who was raped by some sick stranger and wanted to take an abortion, I can't see that the future responsibility for that child was hers anymore than it was eg. mine. So unless I would be willing to be there for that child, am I entitled to have any opinion about what she should do?

In general, I don't think having opinions about what others shall do is such a good idea. But in any relationship we should be allowed to say what we feel about a difficult topic, especially in a life/death situation, which abortion is for me. What I do find strange is that some of the abortion discussions I've witnessed only seem to focus on either taking an abortion or taking full responsibility for the newborn until s/he's 18. With so many other solutions (eg. adoption), it's kind of strange that other solutions are mentioned so little.

There used to be (is?) a big commune called The Farm somewhere in US, and their policy was that women/parents who become pregnant against their will could come and spend the last part of their pregnancy there - up to birth, and then leave (without the baby) after the birth. Many decided to not leave leave the baby after it was born. Some even decided to move to The Farm.

I rarely think of something as 'sacred', but if something is, it must be life. But if some guy wants to prohibit a women - one who is determined to have an abortion - to have one, she'll probably find a way anyway. There are women who have taken abortions without telling their husbands/boyfriends. So - trying to 'force something upon others' usually is a very bad idea, even if the intentions are good.

Even if we would we insist that we, as fathers, have as much right to decide over the fetus' future as the mother, they may simply ignore what we feel, just take an abortion, or say that the abortion happened on it's own. The difficult part for some women may, in such cases, be that they feel that there's a real risk of loosing their boyfriend/husband if want/take an abortion if he doesn't want it. They may even do that.

And the hard part of giving birth to the baby and adopting it to someone else, emotionally, would of course be that once the child is born, they may not be able to let go of it.

What I do not have much respect for, is the career aspect of it. The back side of making abortion an easy and very acceptable thing to do is that some (hopefully very few) think of it as an easy way out instead of using contraceptives. And the one thing I don't have any respect for at all, is the view that a baby isn't a human until it's born. One of my kids were prematurely born, and there's no way someone can convince me that he isn't 100% as much as a human as anyone else who was born after 9 months pregnancy, or that he wasn't as much of a human when he arrived.

Personally, I'm as much against taking the life of a human as I'm against taking the life of an animal, and even more - because I, like other animals, feel a special kind of communion with my own species. At least some of them. And regarding the emergency situations, I can't see why my viewpoints should be followed by someone else than myself. This goes for both killing humans and animals, born or unborn.

Is there any argument a vegan could use to justify abortion of unborn humans on demand that no meat eater could use as an argument to justify animal slaughter on demand?

Here are some:
1) Doing one unethical thing doesn't justify another unethical action. So even if a person would be 100% against abortion, or 'pro' abortion, that doesn't mean that it's right to kill, eat or harm animals. Killing an animal doesn't legitimate killing another animal. Killing a human doesn't legitimate killing an animal. Aborting pregnancy doesn't legitimate harming or killing humans or animals.
2) Emergency situations are different than normal situations. One cannot translate those stories about air passengers eating each others' dead bodies in the Andes mountains into arguments for cannibalism - or pro eating meat.
3) Theories and viewpoints don't have much value. Actions do. That's why we are vegans instead of just reading books about it. So even if you would have the most brilliant arguments pro/con this or that, they are, as such - just theories. So besides sharing what you feel and think, there's not much you can do 'on behalf of others' anyway.

The problem I think some (not all, and the number has luckily been diminishing for years) women meet, when they defend abortion, is that they (in other aspects of life that has to do with children that are born) seem to think that important decisions re. kids is something that mothers shall make.

This is an extended version of the old, male-chauvinistic 'women belong in the home' philosophy. It's actually female-chauvinism. They keep that old myth about fathers being less important for kids than mothers alive - and could maybe even use this to defend 'abortion-on-demand'. Or they could say that abortion is 'great', ignore or forget that it takes two to create a new human, and then become very surprised or annoyed if someone else feels that life, as such, is something that we all have feelings and viewpoints about - at least those involved in creating it.

[Kimberlily1983]

Don't have a whole lot to add to this discussion at this point but like a lot of the points people are making, and thought I would just comment briefly on some.

Trying really hard to keep within the context of finding an argument that does not also justify the killing of animals: Neither do chickens, pigs, sheep and cows.

Was going to answer this but fiver beat me to it:

"Person" and "human" are synonyms in common parlance, but "personhood" has a completely different meaning in philosophy. Grown animals do possess personhood.

What level of importance do you place on women who have to decide that conflict not being in any way misled as to what it is they have the choice to do?

I think it's very important that people not be misled about their choices, of course, but I think it should be within a woman's rights to decide what's best for her life, her health, and the fetus.

I still don't think that this issue is really all that comparable to arguments made by farmers or other animal abusers, as abortion is a unique issue of its own kind: it regards a being that cannot survive without placing huge demands on a woman and her body. I really don't think you can get around the fact that prohibiting abortion means denying women the right to their own bodies and reproductive freedom, whereas denying farmers the right to abuse animals does no such thing.

Now, you brought up the question of whether the state has an obligation to provide abortion services. In my opinion, yes it does, BUT even if it didn't, there are (I think?) plenty of doctors who are willing to perform these services, and plenty of women demanding access to them. So, to clarify, you're against both, right? You're against the state being obliged to provide services, and you're against letting other people make this choice, to provide and use such services?

A human hand is "human" but not a human. A human sperm is "human" but not a human A human embryo is equally "human" but not a human Let's not confuse the part and the whole.

We're using the words differently, but I think we agree on the basic fundamentals. I would say that a human is just a being who belongs to the human species, so that from the moment of conception to the moment one dies one is human. I think you're using the word "human" in the way I use the word "person". A human fetus is not a person, and while it's hard to judge exactly when a fetus becomes a person (no clear, dividing line), we can at least offer up a point at which we know for certain that the fetus is not a person, followed by a gray area, followed by a point at which we know he/she is a person.

And at least until the fetus is viable, I see the conflict between the rights of both mother and fetus to be a conflict that should be resolved by the mother.

[Manzana]

Kimberlilly,
I have so far not discussed anything to do with fetuses... I have only talked about embryos and an embryo is not a human being any more than a sperm is... a fetus, perhaps is a human being (certainly they are at some point, the difficulty being specifying the point!)...

[Kimberlily1983]

But as men, we can't invade a woman's psyche and soul and tell her what to do, although we may feel 100% that a fetus/baby is as much a part of something we have created/given life to, as it is a result of what she has created.

....

Even if we would we insist that we, as fathers, have as much right to decide over the fetus' future as the mother

I agree that the question of fathers' rights against a woman's having an abortion, or fathers' rights to equal access to children, etc. are problematic. It's a product of sexism, this notion that women are naturally better suited to parenting, etc. and it works to our advantage in child custody cases.

Regarding abortion, though, as you say, the thing is is that it's our bodies. We're the ones who go through the ordeal of pregnancy, who take on the risks to our health, who's lives get turned upside down, etc. Perhaps one day we'll have medical advances that allow the fetus to be transferred to the man, and the man will be able to carry the baby to term. (An aside, did anyone here know that men have the capacity to lactate?) Once men can be pregnant, or the baby can be transferred easily to another willing woman, then maybe that will prove a better alternative in some cases.

Though I think that's still problematic. As an antinatalist, if I chose abortion, I would probably be choosing just as much if not more for the sake of my child: not wanting to bring someone into this world. So I would keep that child rather than give him to someone else, certainly. Giving up my baby for adoption would not be an option for me, ever. Terminating a cluster of cells, to spare this future person from life in a world full of unfairness, crime, disease, war, global warming, etc? That's a decision I find worth considering, even if I decide I still can't go through with it.

Since I don't feel a desire/need to eat animal products, I don't feel I have to exercise restraint.

I agree, this is my own experience of veganism as well. I'm never, ever tempted to "cheat". I get tempted to eat junk food, and I do that, but I never get tempted to eat animal products, for a number of reasons, the same way I don't need to restrain myself from randomly hitting people, etc.: I simply don't have the desire to do it.

[Kimberlily1983]

Kimberlilly,
I have so far not discussed anything to do with fetuses... I have only talked about embryos and an embryo is not a human being any more than a sperm is... a fetus, perhaps is a human being (certainly they are at some point, the difficulty being specifying the point!)...

Oh, in the philosophical literature on the subject, fetus just means an unborn baby, from conception to birth. I guess I assumed you were using it the way I have been, in this way...

As for embryos, I guess it just depends on how you define human being. Does human being = belonging to the human species, nothing more? If yes, then they are. If not, if it's more akin to being human AND being a person, then no, they are not.

[Clueless Git]

1) Doing one unethical thing doesn't justify another unethical action. So even if a person would be 100% against abortion, or 'pro' abortion, that doesn't mean that it's right to kill, eat or harm animals. Killing an animal doesn't legitimate killing another animal. Killing a human doesn't legitimate killing an animal. Aborting pregnancy doesn't legitimate harming or killing humans or animals.

Obviously I agree Korn but we are talking about meat eaters here ..

I'm going to bet money that any of the more vociferous vegans here have come across this one before; "But, but, you kill germs when you bathe!"

I do know that one is terminaly idiotic; But that meat eaters grasp at that (to deny any difference in moral ground) does indicate how a vegan being prepared to take a human life would seem in their muddy-minds?

2) Emergency situations are different than normal situations. One cannot translate those stories about air passengers eating each others' dead bodies in the Andes mountains into arguments for cannibalism - or pro eating meat.

But meat eaters do translate that way Quorn;

Commonly used one is 'Eskimos'.

Again we must all of have experienced how the bloke who live aboves Sainsburys reasons that Eskimos can't grow vegetables so it is entirely reasonble for him to fill his trolley with the kinda stuff that eskimos have to eat and stay well clear of the fresh produce aisle?

3) Theories and viewpoints don't have much value. Actions do. That's why we are vegans instead of just reading books about it. So even if you would have the most brilliant arguments pro/con this or that, they are, as such - just theories. So besides sharing what you feel and think, there's not much you can do 'on behalf of others' anyway.

That does kinda make sharing what you think and feel (and dragging what others think and feel out into the open) quite an important thing to do?

Other than that little bit of contrariasism(sp?) I would like to stick my tongue right down the back of your trousers, Korn, by saying that was a most impressive post.

[fiver]

Cupid,

You keep speaking of 'others' whom* we should refrain from harming ('for the benefit of others'). You also mention that 'violence to land is also violence to all those (human and non animal) who live on the land' and refer to 'environmental destruction'. I note that plants ('non animal') also live on the land. Plants also need a nurturing environment which can sustain their lives. As we vegans are aware, they are currently mass-produced and killed in much the same way that non-human animals are farmed. These living 'beings' (if you want to disagree with my use of that word, be prepared to explain WHY they are 'things' and not 'beings') are grown to be killed and eaten without a thought for the worth of their individual lives.

Answer these questions for me:

(1) You are speaking primarily to vegans. Do you doubt that we collectively are the sort of people who consider 'others' before our own self-interest?

(2) *If the human embryos and foetuses which are aborted are among these 'others', can you describe THEM to me? WHO are these others who are being harmed and wronged? What are THEY like?

(3) Probably a worthless question, but...Do you also oppose the killing of non-human animal embryos and foetuses?

(4) If you are against the taking of life and the destruction of environments which sustain it, why do you not also oppose the exploitation, killing and destruction of the environments of plants? Does that not also send the message that killing is wrong?

I'm sure that to the meat numbed mind that any argument that justifies killing plants as part of our lifestyle choice would also serve as justification for killing animals as part of a lifestyle choice for them.

fiver.

[Korn]

Regarding abortion, though, as you say, the thing is is that it's our bodies.

I think what I'm saying is that the unborn kid is IN your bodies. I do think it's very hard for a woman to understand that something that's inside her body also is seen as something that sort-of belongs to someone else (the father), by that somebody else. If a man and a woman creates the most fantastic piece of miniature sculpture (weird example, I know), worth a billion $, and she takes it and eats it - it's still theirs if they made it together.

This is the reason I think arguments including 'it's my body and I can do whatever I want with it' don't really work that well: so many feel that a human baby inside someone else's body belongs to itself, and not to the person who has it inside - just like my silly example with that piece of valuable art.

Some people will say that the the real argument is the umbilical cord, because it somehow demonstrates the 'parasite' argument (which I must admit I have a hard time seeing the value of). But if it would have been only about the umbilical cord, then a baby which was just born, but still had the umbilical cord intact could maybe still be seen as something that's owned and controlled by the mother. This is also a kind of silly example, but it's hard to find real life examples that matches the extraordinary human-inside-a-human situation creating a new human being is.

As an antinatalist, if I chose abortion, I would probably be choosing just as much if not more for the sake of my child: not wanting to bring someone into this world.

I think we should keep the antinatalist discussion outside this thread, because the arguments can easily be confusing - at best...

I'm going to bet money that any of the more vociferous vegans here have come across this one before; "But, but, you kill germs when you bathe!"

Nobody have said that to me - they probably know that vegans aren't trying to prevent all the bacteria on the planet to die. Our bodies have more bacteria than cells, by the way, which gives some perspective to anyone who wants to start a Bacteria's Right Movement.

But that meat eaters grasp at that (to deny any difference in moral ground) does indicate how a vegan being prepared to take a human life would seem in their muddy-minds?

Just like veganism, the whole idea of eating meat is based on some really simple principles. It's just that these principles often are so... useless, lacking in intelligence intelligent and free from of empathy:
1) If you like to do or eat something, just go on, even if it harms others.
2) If you have a habit, stick to it, even if you know it's bad for your or for others, because habits are always good.
3) Don't think before you make up your mind about something. If someone says that you never really decided to eat meat, but do it because you grew up in a meat eating society, try to focus on something else. Meat eaters eat meat because we chose it, all veg*ns are brainwashed.
4) If you deep down feel something is wrong, work extra hard at ignoring it.
5) If you hear some very valid arguments from someone with a different lifestyle than your self, go back to #1-#4.
6) Make sure your lifestyle isn't transformed, ever, to something better - better for you, for animals, for the planet. Change is bad.
7) If you didn't like cooked carrots or cabbage as a kid, don't try any other plant based meals. You will never like them.
8) Don't ever try going veg*n for a few weeks - this could brainwash you. Make sure you have strong opinions about living on another diet without having tried it. Those who have tried it can't possibly know what they are talking about.
9) If you think you have the right to harm other living beings, you are always right. 'Treat others as you would like others to treat yourself' makes absolutely no sense at all.
10) If When you later in life discover that your enthusiastic interest in not changing your lifestyle has caused irreversible health problems for you, do not ever consider admitting that you were wrong all along.

Short version: We can't be bothered with 'arguments' that has no value. This of course applies to the next one as well:

Eskimos can't grow vegetables so it is entirely reasonble for him to fill his trolley with the kinda stuff that eskimos have to eat and stay well clear of the fresh produce aisle?

That does kinda make sharing what you think and feel (and dragging what others think and feel out into the open) quite an important thing to do?

Since only actions count, I'm all for action-ism.

[TXvegan]

I can honestly say yes. I feel that every woman should have the right to choose what happens to her body.

[Clueless Git]

Short version: We can't be bothered with 'arguments' that has no value.

'Lo Korn

I can be bothered with arguments that have no value matey. I can also very much be bothered with arguments that do have value but expose an inconsistency/hypocracy in the arguers personal moral code.

It's a personal thing linked to summat Gandhi said which I recognise as being true: "Happiness is when what you think, what you say and what you do are all in harmony".

If a person believes (thinks) they have value or believe (thinks) themselves to be moraly consistent, but they hold valueless beliefs or practice moral inconsistencies, then waht they think say and do will not all be in harmony: That is an obstacle to their personal happiness.

In that way the effort we put into 'helping' other people to see which beliefs they hold have value, and which do not, and which parts of their moral code are consistent, and which are not, is directly related to how much we want other people to be happy.

Since only actions count, I'm all for action-ism.

Sharing what you think and feel (and dragging what others think and feel out into the open) is definitely 'action' matey?

[Clueless Git]

Cupid,

You keep speaking of 'others' whom* we should refrain from harming ('for the benefit of others'). You also mention that 'violence to land is also violence to all those (human and non animal) who live on the land' and refer to 'environmental destruction'. I note that plants ('non animal') also live on the land. Plants also need a nurturing environment which can sustain their lives. As we vegans are aware, they are currently mass-produced and killed in much the same way that non-human animals are farmed. These living 'beings' (if you want to disagree with my use of that word, be prepared to explain WHY they are 'things' and not 'beings') are grown to be killed and eaten without a thought for the worth of their individual lives.

.. I'm sure that to the meat numbed mind that any argument that justifies killing plants as part of our lifestyle choice would also serve as justification for killing animals as part of a lifestyle choice for them.

It's a frequently used 'justification', yes, Fiver.

The flaw (as we all full well know?) is that veganism is a less harm lifestyle and NOT a no harm lifestyle.

I'm hoping that I don't have to explain why the vegan diet is less harm (to both animals and plants and to the land/environment that both animals and plants live upon and within) than the omni diet to anybody here?

M'other thought on that matter is this: Fruitarians (who avoid killing plants?) are inarguably one step further down the 'less harm' path than we vegans are.

Answer these questions for me:

Happily

(Question 4 is answered above, btw)

(1) You are speaking primarily to vegans. Do you doubt that we collectively are the sort of people who consider 'others' before our own self-interest?

There is no doubt that all those of us who are vegan on compassionate grounds towards non human animals are willing to exercise self restraint for the benefit of others so far as non human animals are concerned.

(2) *If the human embryos and foetuses which are aborted are among these 'others', can you describe THEM to me? WHO are these others who are being harmed and wronged? What are THEY like?

They are human (unique humans as they have unique DNA) and they are alive Fiver.

Any argument that depends on the premise(s) that they: a) Not alive or b) Not human c) Not unique humans is therefore fundamentaly flawed.

(3) Probably a worthless question, but...Do you also oppose the killing of non-human animal embryos and foetuses?

Kinda touched upon in my last reply to Korn ...

I oppose anything and everything were what any person thinks, says and does are not all in harmony, Fiver.

For, say, a Farmer who thinks that the of lives animals are his sole domain, says that the lives of animals are his sole domain and does exactly what he thinks and says there would be little apparent disharmony twix action, thought and word.

For a parent who thinks the lives of his/her children are his/her sole domain says that the lives of his/her children are his/her and does exactly what he/she thinks and says there would also be little apparent disharmony twix action, thought and word.

If anyone believes (thinks) they, themself, to have an unconditional 'right' to life/happiness/self determination/whatever then if they do not understand that all have the same unconditional right then they have disharmony.

There is no disharmony for a person to beleive that others have no rights and interests if they equaly believe in no rights and interests for themselves, btw.

Thing is that from pro-abortioners and from meat eaters is "MY right!" "MY interests!" is virtualy all you hear them say ...

[Clueless Git]

I can honestly say yes. I feel that every woman should have the right to choose what happens to her body.

Really?

Would any woman have the 'right' to have all her limbs amputated, if she wished to?

And no, I can't think of any reason why anyone would want to do that but do you believe they would have the 'right' to do so anyway?

[mini_mi]

Women have the right to make decision regarding their bodies but they and the government don't have the right to force me to participate/pay for that decision. which is in fact what is happening if government sponsored health care is providing for the procedure. So just as you have to be responsible for any other choices you make, you also should be (financially), responsible for this one

[fiver]

"The flaw (as we all full well know?) is that veganism is a less harm lifestyle and NOT a no harm lifestyle."

I understand that. So (if I understand your position correctly), you make no distinction between the killing of plants and the killing of animals? Both involve HARM and therefore the consequences are of equal severity and both are as nefarious to you? We have to kill in order to survive and you have adopted a diet that kills less plants and animals overall. Is that right?

So, each time you eat a vegan meal you feel a pang of regret for the fate of the plants that is equal to that you feel knowing that a field mouse was crushed by a harvester, or that one of your friends just died in an accident? That would seem to be the case for someone who is so intensely concerned about HARM that their life philosophy is based around it, rather than other factors.

"M'other thought on that matter is this: Fruitarians (who avoid killing plants?) are inarguably one step further down the 'less harm' path than we vegans are."

Why aren't you a fruitarian? It seems that someone who adheres to the 'less harm' philosophy has an OBLIGATION to be one. In addition to other things (see @ below).

"They are human (unique humans as they have unique DNA) and they are alive Fiver."

You partly missed the point of my question, which is that words such as WHO should only be used to refer to those possessing personhood. Pro-lifers frequently use biased language like that.

Unless you can say what it is specifically about their being 'human' that is special, I fail to see the significance of that fact. 'Human' is just a categorisation applied to species for the purposes of human utility and by itself has no moral weight.

@Plants have unique DNA and are also alive. I note that the 'less harm' philosophy at the very least requires that we refrain from bringing more animals into the world (procreating), since individual animals cause harm to more living organisms over the course of their lives than do individual plants. (BTW, I note that you ridiculed the 'antinatalism' thread). Those who adhere to the 'less harm' philosophy also seem committed to harming embyros in order to prevent the animals they grow into from harming a greater number of living organisms. Less harm in both cases, right? The former does not harm any existing life.

As others have noted, sperm are also alive. manzana is correct that the 'less harm' philosophy must also conclude that masturbation is wrong (moreso on a single occasion than killing two or three thousand plants).

The implications of the 'less harm' philosophy and the degree of hypocrisy and contradictions required to bring what the people who advocate it DO into harmony with what they SAY are on such a ridiculously large scale, that this position is untenable.

"There is no disharmony for a person to beleive that others have no rights and interests if they equaly believe in no rights and interests for themselves, btw."

For the last time, plants and (undeveloped) embryos don't have interests or rights as they are not self-aware. They do not have a mental life or desires that can be thwarted, so they cannot be WRONGED. They are indifferent. There is no more disharmony in saying this, than noting that rocks have no interests or rights. Whereas, infants do have interests and rights. This is not a matter of consistency among beliefs, it's a matter of FACT.

"If anyone believes (thinks) they, themself, to have an unconditional 'right' to life/happiness/self determination/whatever then if they do not understand that all have the same unconditional right then they have disharmony.

Thing is that from pro-abortioners and from meat eaters is "MY right!" "MY interests!" is virtualy all you hear them say ... "

As I've stated previously, I don't think I have an unconditional right to those things simply because I am alive. If I ever become brain-dead, my life will have no more value than a vegetable or (undeveloped) embryo and I accept that I would then have no interests, my rights would be dissolved and others could extinguish my life. No disharmony here.

[Clueless Git]

I understand that. So (if I understand your position correctly), you make no distinction between the killing of plants and the killing of animals? Both involve HARM and therefore the consequences are of equal severity and both are as nefarious to you? We have to kill in order to survive and you have adopted a diet that kills less plants and animals overall. Is that right?

So, each time you eat a vegan meal you feel a pang of regret for the fate of the plants that is equal to that you feel knowing that a field mouse was crushed by a harvester, or that one of your friends just died in an accident? That would seem to be the case for someone who is so intensely concerned about HARM that their life philosophy is based around it, rather than other factors.

... Why aren't you a fruitarian? It seems that someone who adheres to the 'less harm' philosophy has an OBLIGATION to be one. In addition to other things (see @ below)

@Plants have unique DNA and are also alive.

Answer to that is very simple Fiver ..

I am buddhist, and like all of us here, a vegan. Both buddhists and vegans draw the line at the animal domain.

You partly missed the point of my question, which is that words such as WHO should only be used to refer to those possessing personhood. Pro-lifers frequently use biased language like that.

Unless you can say what it is specifically about their being 'human' that is special, I fail to see the significance of that fact. 'Human' is just a categorisation applied to species for the purposes of human utility and by itself has no moral weight.

From a purely vegan PoV I reason that whatever is human by species belongs within the animal domain 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.

I note that the 'less harm' philosophy at the very least requires that we refrain from bringing more animals into the world (procreating), since individual animals cause harm to more living organisms over the course of their lives than do individual plants. (BTW, I note that you ridiculed the 'antinatalism' thread). Those who adhere to the 'less harm' philosophy also seem committed to harming embyros in order to prevent the animals they grow into from harming a greater number of living organisms. Less harm in both cases, right? The former does not harm any existing life.

As abortion has the sole purpose of ending an existing life (human by species, unique individual human by DNA) I don't understand your point there Fiver.

As others have noted, sperm are also alive. manzana is correct that the 'less harm' philosophy must also conclude that masturbation is wrong (moreso on a single occasion than killing two or three thousand plants).

...The implications of the 'less harm' philosophy and the degree of hypocrisy and contradictions required to bring what the people who advocate it DO into harmony with what they SAY are on such a ridiculously large scale, that this position is untenable.

This one is so much 'bunk' that is hard to choose which blindingly obvious fact to use with which to debunk it Fiver.

More for fun that anything else: The only way of preserving the life of an individual sperm, or egg, (neither a unique individual by DNA) is to ensure that every sperm meets with egg (and every egg with sperm) and succesfully fertilises.

If that is not possible (or is simply unacceptable) then we are down to an argument that is as ridiculous as "But, but, you kill germs everytime you bathe" and such ridiculous arguments. imho, are the sole domain of very desperate meat eaters.

For the last time, plants and (undeveloped) embryos don't have interests or rights as they are not self-aware. They do not have a mental life or desires that can be thwarted, so they cannot be WRONGED. They are indifferent. There is no more disharmony in saying this, than noting that rocks have no interests or rights.

Whereas, infants do have interests and rights. This is not a matter of consistency among beliefs, it's a matter of FACT.


As I've stated previously, I don't think I have an unconditional right to those things simply because I am alive. If I ever become brain-dead, my life will have no more value than a vegetable or (undeveloped) embryo and I accept that I would then have no interests, my rights would be dissolved and others could extinguish my life. No disharmony here.

African Prince (AP) did a topic on the subject of "if something is not aware (at time of killing) then it is not wrong to kill it"?

The general conscensus appeared to be that when a living thing had the chance of a future (if unkilled in its state of temporary awareness) that AP was talking very dangerous bollox.

[Clueless Git]

Women have the right to make decision regarding their bodies but they and the government don't have the right to force me to participate/pay for that decision. which is in fact what is happening if government sponsored health care is providing for the procedure. So just as you have to be responsible for any other choices you make, you also should be (financially), responsible for this one

'Lo Mini-mi

Are you saying that a woman has the right to have all her limbs amputated but only if she can pay for it?

[fiver]

"Answer to that is very simple Fiver ..

I am buddhist, and like all of us here, a vegan. Both buddhists and vegans draw the line at the animal domain.

From a purely vegan PoV I reason that whatever is human by species belongs within the animal domain Fiver."

(I'll come back to this point later)

If you draw the line at the animal domain, why did you respond to this comment of mine...

"'I'm sure that to the meat numbed mind that any argument that justifies killing plants as part of our lifestyle choice would also serve as justification for killing animals as part of a lifestyle choice for them."

...with this?

"It's a frequently used 'justification', yes, Fiver.

The flaw (as we all full well know?) is that veganism is a less harm lifestyle and NOT a no harm lifestyle.

I'm hoping that I don't have to explain why the vegan diet is less harm (to both animals and plants and to the land/environment that both animals and plants live upon and within) than the omni diet to anybody here?"

You acknowledged that the killing of plants is used by meat eaters to undermine vegan objections to the killing of animals. They claim we are hypocrites because they equate all harm and killing. When you replied to me, you did not try to account for your position by saying 'buddhists draw the line at the animal domain'. You responded with an argument that attempts to ground your acceptance of the killing of plants in the fact that less harm is inflicted on both animals and plants and their environments. You seem to have changed your story.

"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."

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 note that the 'less harm' philosophy at the very least requires that we refrain from bringing more animals into the world (procreating), since individual animals cause harm to more living organisms over the course of their lives than do individual plants. (BTW, I note that you ridiculed the 'antinatalism' thread). Those who adhere to the 'less harm' philosophy also seem committed to harming embyros in order to prevent the animals they grow into from harming a greater number of living organisms. Less harm in both cases, right? The former does not harm any existing life.

"As abortion has the sole purpose of ending an existing life (human by species, unique individual human by DNA) I don't understand your point there Fiver."

My point is exactly what I said - your argumentation that abortion is wrong because it inflicts harm/takes life can be used to challenge your attitude towards the killing of plants (they have unique DNA and are alive). Species-ist arguments don't cut it with me (and I would say, most on this forum). Mr Meat Eater knows that you draw the line at the animal kingdom. He wants to know WHY. Is it because someone wrote something in a buddhist rule book?

"This one is so much 'bunk' that is hard to choose which blindingly obvious fact to use with which to debunk it Fiver.

More for fun that anything else: The only way of preserving the life of an individual sperm, or egg, (neither a unique individual by DNA) is to ensure that every sperm meets with egg (and every egg with sperm) and succesfully fertilises.

If that is not possible (or is simply unacceptable) then we are down to an argument that is as ridiculous as "But, but, you kill germs everytime you bathe" and such ridiculous arguments. imho, are the sole domain of very desperate meat eaters."

So, merely because you say that something is 'bunk' or ridiculous you don't have to back up your beliefs? Germs fall into the same category as plants, as they also possess DNA and are alive. Same as embyros. Why don't you just tell us why all life is not equal?

You mention the fact that neither the sperm or egg possess unique DNA as if that is ethically relevant? Identical twins and clones possess the same DNA (genotype). Does this mean that killing one of a pair of twins (or killing cloned animals) is acceptable since their DNA is not unique? LOL

Obviously, we cannot do what is impossible or (unacceptable). Nevertheless, in these times of depleting resources and talk of sustainable populations, the 'less harm' philosophy commits those who adhere to it to fertilise as many eggs as possible and forbids the use of contraception (as it denies eggs and sperm their chance to continue living). Of course, you still need to reconcile this with my earlier questions (%). Bringing more animals into the world results not in less, but more harm. I'll leave you to do the necessary ethical arithmetic...

"African Prince (AP) did a topic on the subject of "if something is not aware (at time of killing) then it is not wrong to kill it"?

The general conscensus appeared to be that when a living thing had the chance of a future (if unkilled in its state of temporary awareness) that AP was talking very dangerous bollox."

We don't have to frame the discussion in terms of awareness. People who are asleep (or in an induced coma) might not be aware of what is going on around them, but when we say that they are 'unconscious' or 'unaware' we are definitely not saying that they are brain dead OR that their explicit/implicit desire to continue living that they have as thinking/feeling beings is in any way diminished by the fact that these things are not occurent. If someone is pronounced brain dead - an assessment which requires the agreement of many medical professionals - (or simply lacks a brain) the situation medically and ethically is entirely different. Once there is no brain stem/activity they are not capable of having interests or desires anymore. Just like all those other forms of life you snuff out without a thought.

Call it dangerous bollocks if you like, but my view reconciles with accepted practice re: abortion and other terminations of life. It's mostly religious zealots who are up in arms. IMO, what is more dangerous is people who argue their opinion 'just because' or 'because it's written here' without thinking about WHY they would choose one way or the other.

[mini_mi]

'Lo Mini-mi

Are you saying that a woman has the right to have all her limbs amputated but only if she can pay for it?

Sure, if she is willing accept full financial responsibility for not just the procedure, but also any other costs due to her decision. Can't imagine any situation where this decision would be made.

[Korn]

It's a personal thing linked to summat Gandhi said which I recognise as being true: "Happiness is when what you think, what you say and what you do are all in harmony".

That sounds good, CS, but I think my problem with this topic is that the discussion sometimes is... vague - in terms of how the various posted statements (about harmony etc) relate to the topic we discuss.

A situation where an abortion is being considered may not even start with a disharmony (what she says, does and thinks) inside the women - but a disharmony between what she feels, does etc., and what another person - who may have raped her - was feeling and doing.

This thread is around being 'pro life'/vegan, and I still think the communication would be easier if we'd stay away from discussing it in a somewhat philosophical/ethical manner, but talk about specific situations.

And - regarding not being bothered with arguments from meat eaters again... I think the main thing here is to find out what each of us feel about the situation that is being discussed. If we do, I don't think it's a problem to explain our viewpoints to someone else.

Some of this has to do with the conflict that arises when we try to use 'everyday ethics' as a reference for what we do in an emergency situation and vice versa... a bit like the guy who recently posted in another thread that he had used honey in some special situation and were somehow thinking that this maybe could be used as some alibi/stepping stone towards using honey on a regular basis.

If a person believes (thinks) they have value or believe (thinks) themselves to be moraly consistent, but they hold valueless beliefs or practice moral inconsistencies, then waht they think say and do will not all be in harmony: That is an obstacle to their personal happiness.

True, and of course this also applies to a woman who has become pregnant against her own will.

Sharing what you think and feel (and dragging what others think and feel out into the open) is definitely 'action' matey?

Yes, but I still think opinions as such are overrated, even if expressing them, as such, can be seen as an action. This is mainly because humans have a strong tendency to ignore others' (and their own) viewpoints in situations where following them would be difficult. This could either happen due to some degree of hypocrisy, or because 'emergency situation ethics' doesn't and should be used as a reference for daily life decisions.

This isn't because having two 'sets' of ethical values makes any sense. It's because we always have to look at the big picture. For instance, the only way to not contribute to harm any animals may be to escape this world and move into an isolated cave in the Himalayas, but - if we look at the big picture - while such a move may cause less direct harm of animals, it also means that one passionate vegan will 'disappear' from the world, so to speak, with everything this implies in terms of not influencing others or serve as a reminder that we don't need to harm other living beings.

Also - if we should follow some perfectionist ideal in a non-perfect world, many vegans and potential vegans would just give up the very idea of being vegan, because a vegan lifestyle would seem very difficult or impossible to follow.

So - while what thoughts and actions should be in harmony with each other, our actions should also be in harmony with real life. For instance, they should be in harmony with the term 'as much as practical and possible'. This applies to the topic of this thread as well, which is why I'm eager to know how this harmony (action/thoughts/words), in your opinion, relates to the vegan/'pro life' dilemma (if that's what it is).

[Clueless Git]

You acknowledged that the killing of plants is used by meat eaters to undermine vegan objections to the killing of animals. They claim we are hypocrites because they equate all harm and killing. When you replied to me, you did not try to account for your position by saying 'buddhists draw the line at the animal domain'. You responded with an argument that attempts to ground your acceptance of the killing of plants in the fact that less harm is inflicted on both animals and plants and their environments. You seem to have changed your story.

Not changed my story, Fiver. No.

I had assumed we both understood that any argument (from a non-vegan) that attributes value to plant life is not difficult to counter argue (using nowt more difficult to understand than the food chain pyramid) that a vegan diet kills less plants.

Kinda like that for a meat eater to argue that "vegans are b'stards for killing plants" is a bit of a shot in the foot as it simply leads to the conclusion that any meat eater are ten fold, or so, more of a b'stard on that front than vegans are.

The argument is thus an entirely self defeating one.

Are we agreed on that before we move on?

[Clueless Git]

This applies to the topic of this thread as well, which is why I'm eager to know how this harmony (action/thoughts/words), in your opinion, relates to the vegan/'pro life' dilemma (if that's what it is).

'Lo Korn

I am going to drop that one untill other misunderstandings have been cleared up. (I do know that will never happen, obviously ...)

One misunderstanding that you seem to be under btw:

You made several references to 'emergency situations'?

Yes there are emergency situations (rape, incest, threat to mothers life in carrying full term ..etc ..) that 'justify' special consideration for allowing abortion.

Similarly there are emergency situations (like the old "what if you are a stranded on a desert Island and a rabbit is the only thing you can eat ..." scenario) that 'justify' special consideration for eating meat.

The very simple point being this; If emergency situations do not justify meat eating 'on demand' then emergency situations do not justify abortion 'on demand' either.

Is there anything in that on which we disagree?

[Korn]

That's another 'what if'-situation, CS, and all 'what if' situations are different. Maybe my resistance against the value of 'opinions' is just as much a skepticism against general answers.

So - to take that desert island situation: I do not value the life of a rabbit higher than my own life. I'm both against causing my own death and someone else's death. At the same time, I don't see a reason to kill an animal only to survive on a desert island for a few days extra. I would also have big problems, I guess, killing an animal even if I had rational reasons for doing it. So your "If emergency situations do not justify meat eating 'on demand' " doesn't necessarily apply to me (but I'm not sure what you mean with emergency situation + 'on demand', or what the alternative to 'on demand'; the opposite of 'on demand', means on a desert island).

Pardon my English, but in these contexts, what, specifically, does 'on demand' mean? Does it mean that you'd have to ask someone else for permission?

[cobweb]

I think someone else mentioned this, but I just want to clarify it again (and it may seem like I'm being pedantic but I think it's important) - there's no such thing as 'abortions on demand'. Two doctors have to ok every termination on medical or psychiatric grounds, and many people pay privately for early terminations (quicker, less shame factor, but a very expensive lesson in life and still has to be ok'd by 2 doctors). The idea of terminating a pregnancy is one that makes me personally uncomfortable, but I still think it's one of those things that has to be taken on a case by case basis. For instance I think there's a huge difference in an 8-week stage termination and and a 20-week one.

Maybe the issue isn't so much being 'pro' or 'anti' abortion (as we live in a VERY imperfect World), it's more an issue of irresponsible attitudes towards the creating and taking of lives. A huge majority of animal eating humans don't make this their conscious choice, they just do whatever seems 'normal' (to them). Likewise there are possibly people (women) out there who are irresponsible enough to have several pregnancies terminated, or even one, without *any* consideration for anyone except themselves (including the potential baby). Not all women who have abortions can be put into that group though, far from it. Just like some meat-eaters will leave a smaller 'footprint' than others, and some vegans are far from perfect also! . I think, in a nutshell, I am trying to say that it's more about 'intent' and compassion than about black and white dogma.

[cobweb]

Cupid Stunt, I wonder what you think of the following (just out of interest): I once rescued a dog who was only young herself but had obviously recently been suckling puppies. Then she became poorly and was rushed to the vet, it turned out she was already pregnant again, and quite far along. I had to make a decision, and I chose there and then to have the pups aborted. I did this because I felt that the dog would become very weakened by giving birth again, plus the fact that I was already looking after 50+ other dogs and pups needing homes. In that kind of situation, in your opinion was that the wrong thing to do?. I have to say that I still think I did the right thing, because I am one for looking at the 'bigger picture' even when the immediate problem is an emotive one maybe.

[Kimberlily1983]

Would any woman have the 'right' to have all her limbs amputated, if she wished to?

Yes.

Women have the right to make decision regarding their bodies but they and the government don't have the right to force me to participate/pay for that decision. which is in fact what is happening if government sponsored health care is providing for the procedure. So just as you have to be responsible for any other choices you make, you also should be (financially), responsible for this one

Well, you could make a similar case concerning many other things. I'd like to not pay for the health care of smokers and meat-eaters, for instance.

At the same time, in a capitalist, exploitative state, I don't think it's fair to expect people to be able to pay for their own procedures. Many of us are in debt just trying to stay alive, can barely afford to pay for our electricity and food, etc. In a perfect world, the profit motive would not exist, and all of us would be able to make choices without relying on the charity of others. Until then, I believe the state has an obligation to pay for certain things. I'm all with you if we want to tax the crap out of corporations, make them foot more - or all - of the bill, but I'm not with you if you want to make someone living in poverty, etc. foot the bill for her own abortion.

Yes there are emergency situations (rape, incest, threat to mothers life in carrying full term ..etc ..) that 'justify' special consideration for allowing abortion. Similarly there are emergency situations (like the old "what if you are a stranded on a desert Island and a rabbit is the only thing you can eat ..." scenario) that 'justify' special consideration for eating meat. The very simple point being this; If emergency situations do not justify meat eating 'on demand' then emergency situations do not justify abortion 'on demand' either.

Glad to hear you're not against ALL abortion, Cupid Stunt. I'm glad to hear you wouldn't put a raped, abused teenager through bearing her father's child, for instance.

I don't think that eating the rabbit is justified in your island scenario. It doesn't matter how dire your circumstances, how necessary something is to your survival; that rabbit has a right to her own existence, her own life. That said, I can completely understand why someone might kill the rabbit in this situation. Or the eat the remains of a dead animal found. Similarly, I can understand why people cave and kill each other, in order to survive; or eat each others' remains if one of the others dies first. In the case where one is already dead, I see no moral issue with eating them (as one is not contributing financially to the further killing of such people or other animals); in the case of actually killing/murdering, it's wrong, but understandable...

It's hard to judge people who are in difficult circumstances that we've not been in. We can judge their actions as wrong, but we can never be certain, 100%, that we would not do the same thing ourselves in such circumstances.

[Johnstuff]

Cobweb, that sounds like a very hard choice to make, but I think you did the right thing. What you say about intent and compassion I agree with and think that sounds quite Buddhist.

I don't think thre is an absolute answer here, no-one is perfect. We can only try to act as best we can.

CS I don't think it is possible to have all your thoughts, words, and actions in perfect harmony. Not that we should aim for disharmony but it sounds like you have a very 'absolute' view. I'm often confused and conflicted.

I'd like to not pay for the health care of smokers and meat-eaters, for instance.

I just like to point out that smokers more than pay for their healthcare with the massive taxes they pay for cigs.

[Kimberlily1983]

I just like to point out that smokers more than pay for their healthcare with the massive taxes they pay for cigs.

I don't know the numbers myself, but maybe you're right.

[Clueless Git]

Pardon my English, but in these contexts, what, specifically, does 'on demand' mean? Does it mean that you'd have to ask someone else for permission?

'Lo Korn

Quite the opposite matey. 'On demand' means that you cannot be refused if you ask for it. You don't have to have a reason ... that kind of thing ...

If it helps; The argument I am making, in simplest terms, is that abortion 'on demand' is not neccessary to cover emergency and/or special situations. That abortion on demand is only neccessary when people require abortion to be freely available for absolutely any reason whatsoever or for absolutely no reason (other than that they want an abortion) at all.

[Clueless Git]

Glad to hear you're not against ALL abortion, Cupid Stunt. I'm glad to hear you wouldn't put a raped, abused teenager through bearing her father's child, for instance.

I am against all abortion Kimberlily and I would indeed try to persuade someone in that unhappy situation to choose life rather than death for an unborn no matter how conceived.

I'm also vehemently against anything other than facts and reason being used to persuade/dissuade people from anything at all that people could possibly do though.

[Clueless Git]

I think someone else mentioned this, but I just want to clarify it again (and it may seem like I'm being pedantic but I think it's important) - there's no such thing as 'abortions on demand'.

Officialy that may be so Cobbers.

Effectively we do (or would have) have abortion on demand though once no 'reason' is trivial enough for any abortion to be refused.

Would be interesting to know if anyone has any evidence that we are not quite at the point of abortion being available for absolutey any reason whatsoever yet?

Cupid Stunt, I wonder what you think of the following (just out of interest): I once rescued a dog who was only young herself but had obviously recently been suckling puppies. Then she became poorly and was rushed to the vet, it turned out she was already pregnant again, and quite far along. I had to make a decision, and I chose there and then to have the pups aborted. I did this because I felt that the dog would become very weakened by giving birth again, plus the fact that I was already looking after 50+ other dogs and pups needing homes. In that kind of situation, in your opinion was that the wrong thing to do?. I have to say that I still think I did the right thing, because I am one for looking at the 'bigger picture' even when the immediate problem is an emotive one maybe.

The decision to take ownership of another living thing is an imperfect choice in the first place Cobbers.

When we make imperfect choices we cannot expect further choices to arise that are going to be perfectly right.

All that follows from any imperfect choice is going to be further choices that involve weighting which of the actions/inactions available to us is the greater, and which the lesser, wrong.

Your 'rock and a hard place' choice was to risk the dogs life/health or have her unborn pups definitely killed.

Looking to see if we did the right thing when the only choice we had was twix two wrong things is a bit like banging our heads on a wall?

[Clueless Git]

CS I don't think it is possible to have all your thoughts, words, and actions in perfect harmony. Not that we should aim for disharmony but it sounds like you have a very 'absolute' view. I'm often confused and conflicted.

Guilty as charged John.

"Opiniated ass-hole" is the term most commonly used ...

[cobweb]

^ ha-ha, at least you admit it! lol.

Interesting though, what you said about imperfect choices in imperfect situations, because I think that is the case with so many choices we all have to make every day, which is why I rarely have any definite answers, and often go round feeling utterly confused myself .

[Clueless Git]

^ ha-ha, at least you admit it! lol.

I'd look like a right Cupid Stunt if I denied it, would you not say?

Interesting though, what you said about imperfect choices in imperfect situations, because I think that is the case with so many choices we all have to make every day, which is why I rarely have any definite answers, and often go round feeling utterly confused myself .

Does the term "cast adrift in a sea of greys" mean anything to you Cobbers?

[cobweb]

^ it's my theme song!

[Clueless Git]

^ it's my theme song!

It's the theme song of everyone who's moral compass is missing the bits that point to absolute black and absolute white Cobbers.

S'kinda like that it is much easier to navigate on a sea of greys if we keep what is absolute white and what is absolute black clearly apart in our minds.

Thing being that keeping absolute white and absolute black apart does require us to have absolute views.

[harpy]

Like George W Bush, you mean?

[Clueless Git]

Like George W Bush, you mean?

With the subtle difference that you are supposed to steer towards the light NOT head straight for the nearest black hole, yes.

Not neccesarily with 'Boy George' in mind: That thing Gandhi said about "happiness is when what you think, what you say and what you do are all in harmony", btw ...

If you have an evil mind, an evil mouth and what you do is evil then you have happiness by Gandhis formula too!

[kokopelli]

I admit I haven't read this entire thread, but it seems to me that exploiting animals for food is entirely different from aborting an unborn human embryo. Most fertilised eggs never develop beyond the initial stages and are spontaneously aborted unnoticed, due to abnormalities. Intentional abortion is an extension of that natural selection process, which happens when the woman feels unable to proceed with pregnancy and motherhood, maybe for example, being unequipped emotionally, physically or in terms of resources to provide appropriate care at that time. Obviously abortion is not an ideal birth control method, but it certainly plays a part in reducing human overpopulation and the misery of unwanted children.

Conversely, meat and dairy production depends on the ruthless exploitation of enforced motherhood via repeated artificially-inseminated pregnancies.

[RubyDuby]

yeah ^

[The Queen]

In answer to the original question, I am pro-life and a buddhist, and since humans are animals and foetuses are humans, I think being pro-life is a fundamental part of being vegan. Whatever people define a foetus as, it is most definately a life.

Also, from a certain point, they DO feel pain and have feelings. I saw the Silent Scream vidoe of an 11 week old being aborted, which shows it struggling to escape from the instruments, proving that it has feeling and reactions similar to that of an animal. Also many mothers will tell you about their unborn child's funny and quirky behaviour at stages before the abortion limit, proving to my mind that seeing as they're choosing to wiggle around and kick and punch, they have their own mind and their own choice to move or not. You could say that these are just instinctive reactions, but you could say that about newborns and many animals too.

But if a vegan was pro-choice, I wouldn't see them as any less vegan. They are good people and have come to those conclusions based on their morals and pro-choice is what they believe is right. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions.

So to sum up, yes, I believe you must be pro-life to be vegan, but that's my personal choice and other can see differently and still be vegan. Its an emotive topic with strong beliefs on either side

Also, in answer to another post:

I am not sure what your point is...

So going back to the original question (and I am going to try very hard that this is my last post):

Killing animals for food is not comparable to being pro choice, the reason being that an animal is a self aware (or at the very least sentient due to having a central nervous system) entity and an embryo is not.

An embryo (yes even a human embryo) is not a human as it has no central nervous system, no brain, no spine and no autonomy to live outside a womb on its own. Certainly from a biological point of view, it can be argueed that it is more like a sperm than a human.

If you are against killing all life (as i believe the buddhist phylosophy advocates?) then of course, the logical conclusion is not to be pro choice. but then, I would arguee the logical conclusion is also not to take antibiotics (as you can see from the name they are ANTI life), not to masturbate (think about all those poor unborn half humans!), not to drive a car (as tonnes of insects are always murdered in your wake), not to dig for tubers etc...

Men should not try to interfere with legislation that affect women's bodies just like women should not try to interfere with legislation about men's bodies. If a man is concerned about an embryo, there are very easy steps that he can take to take care of the part of the embryo that is his responsibility (having intercourse only with a woman that wants/is prepared to have a baby, abstinence and vasectomy come to mind though I would not advocate to impose any of these on men's bodies just like I would not want them to advocate legislation to foce a woman to go through an unwanted pregnancy)

Noone in this thread has advocated abortion on demand and neither am I. Noone has said that terminating a pregnancy is an easy decision but it is one that women should have the right to make. I do not want to be responsible for any women having to end their life in a dodgy back alley clinic having an ilegal abortion (or with some coat hangers inside them), I much rather she makes a choice and she learns from her mistake (or from making the right decision according to her circumstances).

End of my contributions to this thread

An embryo is the very, very beginning of a human life. If you think about it, what were the chances of those two parents, of the billions of people on earth, that one sperm of the man's millions and millions of sperm, and that one egg of all the mother's eggs, coming together at that certain moment in time to create this one unique life? Buddhist believe that this is "sacred" for want of a better word and karma, one sperm and one egg are needed for conception.

An embryo has all the DNA it will ever need to become a unique human with a unique destiny.

In contrast, sperm are just human cells. They are not special. The Dalai Lama may think masturbation is bad, but thats because he thinks that learning to abstain will lead people to a higher understanding of life, it's nothing to do with pro-life. (For the record, I don't agree that masturbation is bad).

Also the vast majority of so-called "back-street" abortions were performed by doctors in clean medical settings, but illegally.

[The Queen]

Obviously abortion is not an ideal birth control method, but it certainly plays a part in reducing human overpopulation and the misery of unwanted children.

In my opinion apart o the reason so many people are lax withcontraceptives is because they know they can just terminate it.

Not all unwanted children are miserable, I have younger friends in a care home for teenagers with problems and even they would rather live than have been got rid of befored they'd even lived.
At least they had a chance of a life, which can turn out well or not, like anybody

[fiver]

"Also, from a certain point, they DO feel pain and have feelings. I saw the Silent Scream vidoe of an 11 week old being aborted, which shows it struggling to escape from the instruments, proving that it has feeling and reactions similar to that of an animal."

The Facts Speak Louder than 'The Silent Scream':
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/fil...ream_03-02.pdf

[Clueless Git]

Intentional abortion is an extension of that natural selection process ...

That being in the same way that intentionaly running people down with a car could be called an extension of the natural selection process whereby different people, if not intentionaly run down with a car, would die at some or other age?

[Clueless Git]

In answer to the original question, I am pro-life and a buddhist, and since humans are animals and foetuses are humans, I think being pro-life is a fundamental part of being vegan.

An embryo has all the DNA it will ever need to become a unique human with a unique destiny

'Lo Queen

No surprises, but I think exactly that too.

[Manzana]

so... just to give a slightly different take on the matter...

Are you guys "pro-life" for yourselves or "anti-choice" for everyone else? I.e it seems clear that if you had an unwanted pregnancy you'd want to continue but would you want to impose that for everyone else?

[pat sommer]

and to be clear, Manzana, I absolutely support 'on demand' as it's nobody's business what a woman does with her body and further, yes, it can be quite an easy decision to terminate but rather unpleasant to have to wait. Waiting caused me to miscarry first.

[Korn]

I think I know why discussions about abortion practically never end up in agreement: both parts think that the other part is 'imposing' something on someone else/are making decisions about someone else's body.