Can you be vegan without also being pro-life?

[Clueless Git]

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.

Both parties are correct Korn.

Abortion imposes death (a very significant imposition?) on the body of an unborn human.

Pregnancy imposes the consequences of sex (pretty severe, admittedly) upon the bodies of those who have chosen to indulge in it.

Meat eater mentality and abortion on demand mentality are fundamentaly identical: Both believe that their own personal right, not just to live, but to live as they wish, overides the right to life of 'others'.

The style of argument for meat eaters and pro abortion on demand is also fundamentaly identical: Both ignore similarities and exploit whatever differences they can find to isolate their 'victims' into sub-categories by which their right to life can be overidden by the arguers right to his/her personal lifestyle choices.

We don't expect agreement when we (as vegans) argue against the lifestyle choices of those who want to kill animals?

Similarly pro-lifers do not expect agreement when arguing against lifestyle choices of those who want to kill unborn humans.

[Manzana]

So.. in answer to my previous question Cupid... are you pro-life for yourself or "anti-choice" for everyone else?

[Clueless Git]

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?

Same as when arguing for veganism Manzana ...

The idea is simply to 'persuade' people to choose life over death wherever it is humanly possible.

Exactly the same way as we try to persuade (not enforce or impose) people to choose life over death, wherever it is humanly possible, when arguing the simple facts in favour of veganism. Basicaly.

[cobweb]

I still think the abortion and meat eating are two very seperate subjects. I don't actually believe that there is such a thing as a person who is completely anti abortion under any circumstances.
I, and I would assume, a lot of other vegans, are against the idea of humans eating animals under any circumstances.

[cobweb]

I think it's possible to be pro-life but also not be completely anti all abortions, just as I think it's possible to be against animal testing but still use pharmaceuticals.

[Clueless Git]

pro-life for yourself or "anti-choice" for everyone else?

I am not at risk of having my life ended by abortion Manzana.

To choose life for self AND life for others is simply a 'life for all' position.

Only life allows choices. Death denies all choices. Pro-Death is therefore anti choice leaving pro-life as the only true pro-choice position.

To choose life for self and death for another is not "pro-life for yourself AND "anti-choice" for somebody else" How so?

[Clueless Git]

I still think the abortion and meat eating are two very seperate subjects.

'Lo Cobbers

I fondly hold on to the belief that being dead is pretty much the same experience for humans (of all ages) as it is for animals.

Therefore I figure that killing one thing and/or killing another are in fact (from the deaded ones pov) one and exact same subject.

I would be interested in hearing any evidence to the contrary, obviously.

I think it's possible to be pro-life but also not be completely anti all abortions ..

To be anti abortion, where one is required to save a life, would not be a genuinely pro-life position IMHO.

[VagabondVegan]

They are one in the same but surely their should be a bit of a division between the affairs between humans and between humans and every other species? The killing of a not yet human embryo, featus etc. is by no means exactly the same to killing animals in any form...and eating them too remember.

[Clueless Git]

They are one in the same but surely their should be a bit of a division between the affairs between humans and between humans and every other species?

Hells Bells VV!

Im totaly sure that not a single meat eater ever existed, does exist or ever will exist who would not totaly agree with that one.

The killing of a not yet human embryo, featus etc ..

We kinda done that one a few pages ago VV.

Some agreed that a human embryo cannot be anything other than human.

Absolutely none were willing to offer any suggestions as to what species a human embryo belongs up to the point that they no longer agree with killing it.

[VagabondVegan]

We kinda done that one a few pages ago VV.

I feared that would be the case and yeah I don't have a particularly original opinion on this its modeled strongly on the views of Peter Singer who I personally took a lot of inspiration from in my early college years. Someone for getting rid of the specisism exhibited by humans and this weird sanctity for the life of less than human and less than animal beings like unconscious embryos and comatose patients.

[Korn]

The idea is simply to 'persuade' people to choose life over death wherever it is humanly possible.

This may the most simple and clarifying statement I've seen in the various threads about abortion (disclaimer I haven't read all the posts in these threads...).

[VagabondVegan]

This may the most simple and clarifying statement I've seen in the various threads about abortion (disclaimer I haven't read all the posts in these threads...).

Err may need to explain the context of this and the quote used for me because I certainly haven't read all the abortion threads please.

[cobweb]

To be anti abortion, where one is required to save a life, would not be a genuinely pro-life position IMHO.

Yep, I think that's what I trying to say really. However (unlike you?) I do draw a line somewhere between an early stage embryo and a 'viable' animal or human............nevertheless abortion is still something that I find upsetting (at any stage, and for any animal/human).

[Clueless Git]

I feared that would be the case and yeah I don't have a particularly original opinion on this its modeled strongly on the views of Peter Singer ....

I had to have a quick read up on Singer to get the gist of what the bloke advocates.

If I read him right he actualy debunks the falsehood that a human fetus is not human but actualy says that killing an innocent human is not necessarily wrong based upon if the interests of the innocent are outweighed by the interests of another?

Quite interesting that from a vegan -v- meat eater PoV;

Never have I met a meat eater who does not believe that his or her interests outweigh the interests of whatever is her or her prefered flavour(s) of animal.

[VagabondVegan]

I had to have a quick read up on Singer to get the gist of what the bloke advocates.

If I read him right he actualy debunks the falsehood that a human fetus is not human but actualy says that killing an innocent human is not necessarily wrong based upon if the interests of the innocent are outweighed by the interests of another?

Quite interesting that from a vegan -v- meat eater PoV;

Never have I met a meat eater who does not believe that his or her interests outweigh the interests of whatever is her or her prefered flavour(s) of animal.

Yeah Singers main view is that there is a spectrum of humanity in which animals rank pretty much on the same level as humans maybe a bit below based on categories such as sentience and emotional capacity. He uses the term specicism to describe out attitude that animals are less important than humans thus we test on them, kill them for sport, use them for labor and eat them which he obviously disagrees heavily on. The main thing he gets a bad wrap for is saying that servearly physically and mentally disable humans and embryos are way down on the spectrum because they lack emotional capacity, sentience etc. and thus it is more justifiable to kill and test drugs on these humans than it is to test on animals that display higher degrees of sentience and such. This is a very blanket overview and there are lot of nuances to his arguments. He is a Vegan and even a spokes person for Peta and also does a rather lot of work for charity holding that everyone should give at least 10% of their income to charity.

As for the interest part he is a Utilitarian who says that the interests of someone or a group of people/animals higher on the spectrum should outweigh the interests of someone or a group of people who fall lower on the spectrum. This is a philosophy that gets supporters a lot of hate . So the value of embryos and disabled humans is lower than every other human and can be aborted or euthanised or used for testing rather than using animals that are higher on the spectrum and the results of any drugs testing are not exactly replicable to humans as they are indeed different species.

Probably explained this badly and not completely accurately sorry

[Clueless Git]

Yep, I think that's what I trying to say really. However (unlike you?) I do draw a line somewhere between an early stage embryo and a 'viable' animal or human ..

No, NOT unlike me actualy Cobbers ..

I simply recognise (as did Peter Singer, btw) that the line is simply undrawable at any point other than at conception.

Truth is that everyone knows the line is undrawable elsewhere. That is why anyone who finds conception an inconvenient point to draw the line at just makes a massive smudgy mark on the page and calls it a line, when it very clearly isn't, and then gets stroppy and starts flouncing about how "if my massive smudge cannot be seen as a line then I am not prepared to explain it any further".

[VagabondVegan]

No, NOT unlike me actualy Cobbers ..

I simply recognise (as did Peter Singer, btw) that the line is simply undrawable at any point other than at conception.

Truth is that everyone knows the line is undrawable elsewhere. That is why anyone who finds conception an inconvenient point to draw the line at just makes a massive smudgy mark on the page and calls it a line, when it very clearly isn't, and then gets stroppy and starts flouncing about how "if my massive smudge cannot be seen as a line then I am not prepared to explain it any further".

So your saying that you either draw a clear line at conception or a clear line at physical birth and any other line is hard to place? Just to clear up your point for my sake

Like the way Singer is being used as a reference now I brought him up, who knew A Level Religious Studies would ever be useful :P

[Clueless Git]

The idea is simply to 'persuade' people to choose life over death wherever it is humanly possible.

This may the most simple and clarifying statement I've seen in the various threads about abortion (disclaimer I haven't read all the posts in these threads...).

Thank you for those kind words Korn

[Clueless Git]

So your saying that you either draw a clear line at conception or a clear line at physical birth and any other line is hard to place? Just to clear up your point for my sake

Physical birth is no more a clear line than is 30 seconds before birth or 30 seconds, or one day before/one day after, VV.

The only clear line is conception. That is the point is at which a unique human life is set into progress. Any point after that a unique human life either has to take its chances or be intentionaly and deliberately ended.

Like the way Singer is being used as a reference now I brought him up, who knew A Level Religious Studies would ever be useful :P

I am very gratefull to you for making me aware of him VV

As for the interest part he is a Utilitarian who says that the interests of someone or a group of people/animals higher on the spectrum should outweigh the interests of someone or a group of people who fall lower on the spectrum. This is a philosophy that gets supporters a lot of hate ...

Nazism was utilitarian and that scares the bejasus out of people who remember what happened when the thin end of the that wedge gas allowed to get a grip last time.

[VagabondVegan]

Physical birth is no more a clear line than is 30 seconds before birth or 30 seconds, or one day before/one day after, VV.

Ahh ok it is just I'm sure your aware that some people would draw a line at the time when the child is physically removed from its mothers life support as it would no longer be abortion but euthanasia. I've met a few people who support abortion on these grounds but not euthanasia. But then the arugument ensues on at what point the child is capable of living without its mothers help be it premature birth or the childs reliance on mothers milk post birth.

[cobweb]

Well I'm pro-life by the simplest definition that I think all life is of value and should be respected, but I also like to think long-term, so maybe, in some specific cases, an abortion would actually be the kindest option. Kinder than an animal or human baby being born into a life of immense pain, neglect and cruelty. Much better (obviously) to prevent 'unwanted' pregnancies in the first place, I would consider that the first goal to spend energy working towards. That's where it differs from the meat eating argument, I can't see a meat-eater justifying themselves in the same way.

[cobweb]

BTW, without being too pedantic, Singer isn't a 'true' vegan. He states that he eats vegan at home but not whilst travelling.
I don't agree with many of his ideas but he did a lot of good bringing animal rights into the public domain.

[RubyDuby]

There is such a thing as a fate worse than death. "Anti-death!" is not necessarily the cry of vegans, so much as "Give them their freedom to live their life as they would want to be able to live it." Having a child without wanting that child, or without the ability to raise it in the best interest of the child, is not giving it the freedom it deserves, and I since I have no faith in after-life I can't see anything wrong with denying that person the suffering it would endure if forced into this world unwanted. It's just setting that being up for a life of misery... speaking from experience.

dead people/animals can't have a point of view... and if you do have a belief in the afterlife, you might argue the dead are better off. Death is the hardest on the living.

I'm sure I sound like a complete monster, but I do only agree with early termination. I don't think of an embryo as a human being as it can't live on it's own.

and I know you pro-lifers aren't going to agree with me and I'm okay with that. Just don't go bombing any clinics.

[VagabondVegan]

BTW, without being too pedantic, Singer isn't a 'true' vegan. He states that he eats vegan at home but not whilst travelling.
I don't agree with many of his ideas but he did a lot of good bringing animal rights into the public domain.

Well the guys first and foremost priority and focus is on medical research and medical ethics rather than animal rights and nutrition and yeah I have met very few people who say they like Singer because he is painfully consistent. He takes his philosophy as logically far as it can go and doesn't back away, he says that it should be ok that people can have sexual and romantic relationships with animals if there is adequate reason to believe the animal has consented at least as far as an animal can consent and the same with children. That will obviously strike a lot of people as being just inherantly wrong but through utilitarian logic it makes sense.

[The Queen]

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

You just posted a link to a US organization that labels anyone who even slightly questions abortion as a "zealot". They have their own agenda and their own way of seeing the issue, and many of the "facts" on that pages were not backed up. Such as "these cannot be interpreted as brainwavs. Brainwaves do not occur until the third trimester" and "technology has proved the video was sped up and slowed down in order to make the feotus' movements appear erratic" without saying the evidence. I realised when refering to this contraversial video, which is very obviously also made be people with strong views, that I would be criticised for it. The narrator is very melodramatic and I wasn't much interested in what he said, and realised it was a bollocks/fact hybrid when I saw it. It was the feotus' reaction that showed me it definitely moved when disturbed. It wasn't the mother making it do that, it was the foetus. It doesn't matter it was reflex, the point is it was separate from the mother. Many animals only have reflex reactions. Also there was a section about that you need a certain part of the brain in order to feel pain, but many animals don't have this part of the brain or equivalent.

Whether the foetus feels pain or not is only a small part in forming my opinion. But since it probably would affect quite a lot of people's views, until the evidence is conclusive as to their experience of pain etc, people ought to err on the side of caution.

[The Queen]

Edit - you don't need to read this whole long post, I wrote it better in my next one! The red is the relevant bit, the rest is statistics.

Pro-choice people always cite extreme examples like a teenage girl being raped by her father, but this is extremely rare. However if I mention a girl I know who'd had 4 abortions by the age of 16, they would brush it off as rare, despite 60% of teenage pregnancies ending in abortion and 34% of all abortons in England and Wales being performed on women who've had at least one before.

In general pro-life people will accept women having emergency contraception after rape or abortion in exreme cituations, but if we dare to suggest that some people are lax with their contaception and unplanned pregnancies are very regularly poeple own fault (yes, the man's too) they jump down our throat. They don't accept our opinion as valid, but I accept theirs.

It feels like pro-choice people see themselves as educated and modern and everyone else is ignorant and immature and can't see the full picture, there needs to be more tolerance

Facts: there would be an estimated 70,000 fewer abortions a years if every woman on the pill went to a better form of contraception

50% of young women have taken the morning after pill, but not 50% of women have been raped! And since condoms are 90-99% effective, they can't all have been split condoms, and that's not taking into account all the other forms of contraception. People are too lazy.

50% of pregnancies are unplanned

Results from an American non-biased study:
Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2005, 37(3):110–118

The point of the study was too see if there was a change in reasons between 2004 and 1987. I had problems copying the table and got rid of the 1987 results to simplify it. They are irrelevant anyway because the reason I'm potins it is to show that the vast majority of abortions occur for, I think, selfish reasons. Note that only 1% and les that 0.5% cited rape or incest (results were the same in 1987).

TABLE 2. Percentage of women reporting that specified reasons contributed to their

decision to have an abortion, 2004

Reason 2004

(N=1,160)

Having a baby would dramatically change my life 74%
Would interfere with education 38%
Would interfere with job/employment/career 38%
Have other children or dependents 32%
Can’t afford a baby now 73%
Unmarried 42%
Student or planning to study 34%
Can’t afford a baby and child care 28%
Can’t afford the basic needs of life 23%
Unemployed 22%
Can’t leave job to take care of a baby 21%
Would have to find a new place to live 19%
Not enough support from husband or partner 14%
Husband or partner is unemployed 12%
Currently or temporarily on welfare or public assistance 8%
Don’t want to be a single mother or having relationship problems 48%
Not sure about relationship 19%
Partner and I can’t or don’t want to get married 12%
Not in a relationship right now 11%
Relationship or marriage may break up soon 11%
Husband or partner is abusive to me or my children 2%
Have completed my childbearing 38%
Not ready for a(nother) child 32%
Don’t want people to know I had sex or got pregnant 25%
Don’t feel mature enough to raise a(nother) child 22%
Husband or partner wants me to have an abortion 14%
Possible problems affecting the health of the fetus 13%
Physical problem with my health 12%
Parents want me to have an abortion 6%
Was a victim of rape 1%

Became pregnant as a result of incest <0.5%

[VagabondVegan]

...that all well and good but you can pelt many people with numbers all day and it won't change their attitude. You posted so much I can't really address all of it with better more in depth sources because you tried to cover so much in one post without use of studies addressing the specific issues. Take me a week or so and I have to write an essay on Kafka hehe :P

[The Queen]

You just saw the size of the post and replied without reading it. The vast bulk of that post was statistics, the actually if yoou'd read it before forming your opinion last part WAS from one specific named study, which I only posted if people wanted to look at proof of what I said, I didn't need to copy it.

You only needed to read the top 8 lines before I posted statistics. I was talking about pro-choice people's apparent intolerance to different opinions. Just as pro-life people know that it isn't all black and white and all abortion isn't worng, then pro-choice women need to acknowledge that pregnancy isn't always some curse that is randomly inflicted on unaware victims and often women ARE to blame, for example by missing pills etc or not bothering at all.

The relevant statistic was that only 1% of abortions are down to rape, meaning 99% of abortions were selfish to my mind. I copied the whole table to prove this as I thought I would get criticised if I only posted part of it. Also, the morning after-pill is preferable to abortion in cases of rape, personally I couldn't justify a late abortion. It's not the foetus's fault.

Because there are so many good contraceptives these days, no one really needs to get pregnant. But there would be 70,000 less abortions a year if everyone switched from the pill. Somebody is to blame for that, in some cases the parents for being lax, on the whole the government for not doing enough.

But seeing as no contraceptive is 100% effective, and the sole biological purpose of sex is procreation, by having sex a couple surely accept that there's a risk of pregnancy. That's nature, I don't see why women should have the right to go against it unless medically necessary or in extreme circumstances.

I wish I'd just posted this instead of that whole long thing. I was sleeepy!

[Clueless Git]

...that all well and good but you can pelt many people with numbers all day and it won't change their attitude.

If the numbers were factual then all you are saying is that the pro-abortion-on-demand attitude won't be changed by facts VV.

[fiver]

I fail to see what is so sacred about human DNA. Until vegan pro-lifers show the same concern for the lives of plants and other lifeforms (and the DNA they contain) as they do for animals, they are no better than the speciesists/sexists/racists who have historically exploited and abused others because they are not members of the 'same' group. Get off your high-horse unless you are able to present a substantive argument that can be assessed and critiqued. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that despite the many differences which exist between grown human and non-human animals, we share a mental life and concern for our well-being - these facts are enshrined in animal cruelty laws accepted by even the most mainstream meat-eater. These ETHICALLY relevant similarities trump the other non-relevant cosmetic differences (what something looks like, which is frequently the bane of equality). Can the same be said about plants? No. Failing to accept the distinction of PERSONHOOD demands that one account for the killing of plants, bacteria etc.. STOP AVOIDING THIS POINT.

I don't take objections to abortion on religious grounds seriously because noone can prove the truth of their chosen religion above any other and ALL religions are so transparently anthropocentric (in terms of both their content and the medium used to communicate them). For some reason, I've yet to read a holy book that is intelligible to and pertinent to the origins and concerns of a cauliflower. Or a cow, for that matter...how should Daisy live in order to attain spiritual nirvana?

[VagabondVegan]

If the numbers were factual then all you are saying is that the pro-abortion-on-demand attitude won't be changed by facts VV.

No I'm bringing up a valid point, the quote/paraphrase 'logic never converted'. You can use all the facts, statistics and it just wont help you argue a point in certain cases. Abortion is one of those cases where such huge blocks are present: culture, religion, emotion etc. these things will not always work.

And I was correct, 1 specific study cannot justify everything you said not even the last thing. Case in point, 1% of all abortions are down to rape is a ridiculous statistic. It might be the case in one country but not the other, might be lower in other countries even. Then even within the country you have to show the different between racial and class which will inevitably there. Another case is the statistic on how high the number of abortions for people who have already had an abortion previously. Again you need a more in depth study and source it to make such a claim which takes shows the difference between groups of people rather than just this blanket statistic.

My point is now not arguing for or against abortion or pro-life or pro-choice perspectives its just to show how...awkard(?) what you are doing is.

[SlackAlice]

and I know you pro-lifers aren't going to agree with me and I'm okay with that. Just don't go bombing any clinics.

We could always make a pact with the clinics Ruby... If they promise not to do any harm to life then we promise not to either.

Prehaps we could offer a similar pact to slaughterhouses ?

[SlackAlice]

You only needed to read the top 8 lines before I posted statistics. I was talking about pro-choice people's apparent intolerance to different opinions. Just as pro-life people know that it isn't all black and white and all abortion isn't worng, then pro-choice women need to acknowledge that pregnancy isn't always some curse that is randomly inflicted on unaware victims and often women ARE to blame, for example by missing pills etc or not bothering at all.

The relevant statistic was that only 1% of abortions are down to rape, meaning 99% of abortions were selfish to my mind. I copied the whole table to prove this as I thought I would get criticised if I only posted part of it.

Devil -ed if you do and devil-ed if you dont eh Queen?

For the record I found the statistics well represented and easily interpretated either with or without the (lengthy ) text.

[RubyDuby]

We could always make a pact with the clinics Ruby... If they promise not to do any harm to life then we promise not to either.

Prehaps we could offer a similar pact to slaughterhouses ?

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.

[Clueless Git]

Until vegan pro-lifers show the same concern for the lives of plants and other lifeforms (and the DNA they contain) as they do for animals, they are no better than the speciesists/sexists/racists who have historically exploited and abused others because they are not members of the 'same' group.

Peculiarly, Fiver, If there is any attempt to stop all humans being included in the 'same' group then that is coming exclusively from the pro-abortion-on-demand side of this <ahem!> debate. Which, as you correctly pointed out, is exactly the tactic (of excluding sub-groups of the humans species from human rights) that racists and sexists have always used.

Conversely all arguments against selective exclusion and in favour of total inclusion of all humans within the one 'same' human group have come exclusively from the pro-life camp.

Your argument that pro-lifers are being speciesist is equaly bizarre on two main counts:

1. Veganism draws the line at the animal domain and thus all vegans have the shared ground of regarding speciesism against the plant domain as being acceptable.

2. Arguing that all members of a species belong to 'same' group is not speciesist whereas arguing that certain members of a species should be excluded from 'same' species is sub-speciesism at best.

You appear to be accusing those who oppose exclusion from 'same' as being the ones who promote it whilst vigorously opposing inclusion and arguing in favour of exclusion from 'same' group yourself.

[SlackAlice]

And I was correct, 1 specific study cannot justify everything you said not even the last thing. Case in point, 1% of all abortions are down to rape is a ridiculous statistic. It might be the case in one country but not the other, might be lower in other countries even. Then even within the country you have to show the different between racial and class which will inevitably there. Another case is the statistic on how high the number of abortions for people who have already had an abortion previously. Again you need a more in depth study and source it to make such a claim which takes shows the difference between groups of people rather than just this blanket statistic.
.

It is a well known fact that statistics can prove or disprove anything we wish them too.

From my dark days as a Sociology student I can remember wading through mountains of research and statistics produced to validate the premise of a particular theory.

All studies have to have a sample group and are restricted by the confines of that group. The statistics produced are reflective only of the class/race/culture etc of THAT sample group. The 'proof of the pudding' is whether the results of that research are transferable to a different or wider group.

It may be true that in a different sample group a figure of only 1% of abortions occuring as a result of rape is a 'ridiculous' statistic but on the other hand it may not. As no one is offering evidence to support or argue this figure how can we know?

Surely in order to have a well balanced debate it is important to look at all the research available in order to identify trends and percentages? It is not feasible to create one sample large enough to cover all the variables you mention. All that is possible is to gather research from specific groups and see if the results are transferable to other specific groups.

In order to discredit one piece of research you need to offer up opposite or conflicting evidence . It is not enough simply to dismiss it because it appears to conflict with your own viewpoint.

[Clueless Git]

We could always make a pact with the clinics Ruby... If they promise not to do any harm to life then we promise not to either.

Aye,

We dont want big dead bodies piling up at our abortion clinics.

Afore you know it they'd have no room left for all the little dead bodies in their dumpsters and their skips.

Prehaps we could offer a similar pact to slaughterhouses ?

I know that they closed all the gas chambers down now but just as a point of principle can we add them to the list?

[VagabondVegan]

It is a well known fact that statistics can prove or disprove anything we wish them too.

From my dark days as a Sociology student I can remember wading through mountains of research and statistics produced to validate the premise of a particular theory.

All studies have to have a sample group and are restricted by the confines of that group. The statistics produced are reflective only of the class/race/culture etc of THAT sample group. The 'proof of the pudding' is whether the results of that research are transferable to a different or wider group.

It may be true that in a different sample group a figure of only 1% of abortions occuring as a result of rape is a 'ridiculous' statistic but on the other hand it may not. As no one is offering evidence to support or argue this figure how can we know?

Surely in order to have a well balanced debate it is important to look at all the research available in order to identify trends and percentages? It is not feasible to create one sample large enough to cover all the variables you mention. All that is possible is to gather research from specific groups and see if the results are transferable to other specific groups.

In order to discredit one piece of research you need to offer up opposite or conflicting evidence . It is not enough simply to dismiss it because it appears to conflict with your own viewpoint.

I wasn't trying to argue anything so didn't feel the needed to haul out evidence because I gave up trying to debate things like this in college though it does become a bit of guilty pleasure sometimes I'd rather give quick pointers to logical inconsistencies and better ways of making points.

[Clueless Git]

I wasn't trying to argue anything so didn't feel the needed to haul out evidence because I gave up trying to debate things like this in college though it does become a bit of guilty pleasure sometimes I'd rather give quick pointers to logical inconsistencies and better ways of making points.

I agree that using statistics is unwise, at best, for what that's worth VV.

[SlackAlice]

a

[kokopelli]

The only clear line is conception. That is the point is at which a unique human life is set into progress. Any point after that a unique human life either has to take its chances or be intentionaly and deliberately ended.

Foetal development is a well-documented progression with a succession of developmental 'milestones' (or 'lines'), from conception, through implantation, placental development and the stages of physical development of the embryo into a foetus. During the first trimester (when most abortions are carried out), the foetus is highly susceptible to disabling damage from the environment, state of health, diet and lifestyle of the mother. If a mother feels strongly that she is unable to provide adequate care, then making her continue with pregnancy against her wishes is highly likely to be counter-productive in terms of child welfare. Many mammals can actually reabsorb foetuses that are conceived under adverse circumstances. Sometimes even humans reabsorb foetuses in multiple pregnancies.

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?

Saying that abortion is another aspect of natural selection cannot be extended to 'intentionally running people down with a car'. A foetus is entirely dependent on the placenta, the organ it shares with its mother. Until at least 25 weeks of gestation, the foetal lungs are incapable of gas exchange. Also, pregnancy and giving birth are far from risk-free for the mother.

[Manzana]

Also, pregnancy and giving birth are far from risk-free for the mother.

On that note, I thought I'd add this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandsty...th?INTCMP=SRCH

[Clueless Git]

Foetal development is a well-documented progression with a succession of developmental 'milestones' (or 'lines'), from conception, through implantation, placental development and the stages of physical development of the embryo into a foetus. During the first trimester (when most abortions are carried out), the foetus is highly susceptible to disabling damage from the environment, state of health, diet and lifestyle of the mother. If a mother feels strongly that she is unable to provide adequate care, then making her continue with pregnancy against her wishes is highly likely to be counter-productive in terms of child welfare. Many mammals can actually reabsorb foetuses that are conceived under adverse circumstances. Sometimes even humans reabsorb foetuses in multiple pregnancies.

'Lo Koko

Which of that collection of very broad smudges is it that you are saying that a very clear line can be drawn at?

[Clueless Git]

Also, pregnancy and giving birth are far from risk-free for the mother.

I think that was already covered ...

But seeing as no contraceptive is 100% effective, and the sole biological purpose of sex is procreation, by having sex a couple surely accept that there's a risk of pregnancy. That's nature, I don't see why women should have the right to go against it unless medically necessary or in extreme circumstances.

As Queenie pointed out: Pregnancy is a known 'risk' of sex so where sex is entered into willingly they risks of sex cannot be said to have been entered into unwillingly.

Any argument that where sex was willingly entered into but the risks of pregnancy were not willing entered into is therefore blatantly dishonest.

[Manzana]

Are you serious? so everytime you have had sex with a woman you have willingly entered the risks of pregnancy? (for you and for her?)

[Manzana]

'Lo Koko

Which of that collection of very broad smudges is it that you are saying that a very clear line can be drawn at?

The line is not clear at conception either, kokopelli also made that point but you chose to ignore it. I also made that point when I said that for me the line could perfectly be at sperm leaving the testicles...

[Clueless Git]

Are you serious? so everytime you have had sex with a woman you have willingly entered the risks of pregnancy? (for you and for her?)

Of course I'm serious Manzana.

Every single time I have had consensual sex with a woman both me and that woman have willingly taken the risks of pregnancy.

Unless a person is so dum-bassed that they cannot make the link between sex and the risk of pregnancy. How could it possibly be otherwise?

The line is not clear at conception either, kokopelli also made that point but you chose to ignore it. I also made that point when I said that for me the line could perfectly be at sperm leaving the testicles...

If a gentleman allows his sperm to leave his testicles in the full and certain knowledge that his outlet pipe is fully imbedded in a ladies inlet pipe that would be a perfectly fair point to draw the line also.

Equaly seriously: Is the link between sex and pregnancy really being disputed here?

[fiver]

"Peculiarly, Fiver, If there is any attempt to stop all humans being included in the 'same' group then that is coming exclusively from the pro-abortion-on-demand side of this <ahem!> debate. Which, as you correctly pointed out, is exactly the tactic (of excluding sub-groups of the humans species from human rights) that racists and sexists have always used."

"Conversely all arguments against selective exclusion and in favour of total inclusion of all humans within the one 'same' human group have come exclusively from the pro-life camp."

I don't care what convenient categories human beings put things into for the purposes of utility - race, species, sex etc... These labels have no ethical weight in themselves. Like all the black-and-white thinkers who seek to compartmentalise everything into easily manageable groups, racists seek to discriminate on the basis of differences which are not ethically relevant (for example, membership of a group or skin colour). They fail to address the fact that neither of these differences diminish the interests of foreigners who are just as entitled to equal consideration in an egalitarian society as anyone else. Richard Dawkins rightly criticises this 'group' way of thinking in his article, Gaps in the Mind ( http://hermiene.net/essays-trans/gaps_in_the_mind.html ).

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. Your (to use Dawkin's terminology) discontinuous mind prevents you from discerning subtleties, and thus when attempting to reconcile your conflicting attitudes towards the killing of plants/embryos you reassure yourself with the same empty statement...human, human, human. This is exactly what racists, sexists and speciesists do. White = worthy. Black = not worthy. Male = worthy. Female = not worthy. Human = worthy. Animal = not worthy. Plant = not worthy. Don't bother arguing with Mr Discontinuous Mind coz he can't see past categories or his own prejudice. There is no reasoned argument which elucidates differences and similarities within and without race, species, sex etc... which can reach him. Moving the discussion beyond categories is far too continuous, permits intolerable shades of grey, allows for individual variance that undermines generalisation.

"Your argument that pro-lifers are being speciesist is equaly bizarre on two main counts:"

I was quite clear that I was criticising your conflicting attitude towards the killing of PLANTS, which is not based on any distinction that might be made between plants and embryos, but their simply being plants. That is speciesism.

"1. Veganism draws the line at the animal domain and thus all vegans have the shared ground of regarding speciesism against the plant domain as being acceptable."

No, they don't. If a previously undiscovered plant is found by scientists and they determine that it is capable of having mental, emotional and physical experiences similar to those of animals due to its being more highly developed than any documented (plant) species, I will not shut my eyes and say 'I draw the line at the animal kingdom'. I will say, 'this particular species should be enfranchised in the moral community'. Of course, it is testimony to the discontinuous mind which views all species as distinct from each other (rather than evolving over time), that some black-and-white thinkers would ask whether this newly found lifeform was properly an animal or plant before deciding whether cutting it to pieces alive presented a problem. Can you see the point being missed?

It appears that only some of us vegans have REASONS for drawing a distinction between plants and animals. When Mr Meat Eater asks vegans why they care so much about the killing of animals but not plants, failing to provide a rational answer does a massive disservice to the vegan cause. Saying that vegan prejudice towards plants is acceptable is about as harmful as you can get to the movement, as Mr Meat Eater can simply reply that his prejudice towards non-human animals is acceptable. Unless you acknowledge the significance of personhood, you have no way to avoid the contradiction and are most definitely a hypocrite re: harming and killing.

"2. Arguing that all members of a species belong to 'same' group is not speciesist whereas arguing that certain members of a species should be excluded from 'same' species is sub-speciesism at best.

You appear to be accusing those who oppose exclusion from 'same' as being the ones who promote it whilst vigorously opposing inclusion and arguing in favour of exclusion from 'same' group yourself."

See my previous points. You misunderstood what I wrote...again.

[VagabondVegan]

I like you fiver

Oh and also I believe they did find that certain plants release chemicals when they have been damaged or harvested very similar to endorphins in the animal kingdom essentially saying that they go into a sort of state of 'panic' when they are about to die.

[snivelingchild]

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 can say it's unethical all you want, but realistically expecting people to follow that is just dumb. People don't do that. They shouldn't. It makes them violent. Like killing full grown people and raping women violent. Just look at any area of the world that represses sexuality. Bingo. And I'll take abortion over rape and adult murder any day.

Of course, I think everyone is for preventing pregnancy so that has to happen a minimal amount. Anyone that doesn't is an idiot. So....why not just focus on that instead?

That's like attempting to make being homeless illegal instead of creating programs which might prevent homelessness.