Political Crossfire Forums

[Sailor Moon]

I sometimes hear generalizations on here saying that pro lifers are hypocritical. I just want to ask those of you who are pro animal rights, and pro choice, why it is you stand for animal rights and not human rights?

[Selfish_Meme]

Hmmm, I have thought about this and have decided my viewpoint is consistent enough.

a. Child or mature adult of any species - implies - care and respect.
b. Killing is not inherently immoral - implies - abortion, capital punishment and eating are acceptable.
c. Care and Respect - implies - killing must be done in a way consistent with societies laws and morals.

Your morals, however are not consistent.

If my morals dictate that it is immoral to kill, then I can't eat anything.

If your morals say it is immoral to kill a fetus, you should have starved or be starving by now, because you shouldn't be able to kill anything else either.

But you aren't, because you believe that there is something intrinsically superior about a human being, which we might as well for all intents and purposes name a 'soul'. Of course this can't be proved scientifically so the belief can be called 'faith' (or religion).

So your stance on abortion has nothing to do with science or law. This is about you foisting your religious views upon people.

[Sailor Moon]

Selfish_Meme wrote: Hmmm, I have thought about this and have decided my viewpoint is consistent enough.

a. Child or mature adult of any species - implies - care and respect.
b. Killing is not inherently immoral - implies - abortion, capital punishment and eating are acceptable.
c. Care and Respect - implies - killing must be done in a way consistent with societies laws and morals.

Your morals, however are not consistent.

If my morals dictate that it is immoral to kill, then I can't eat anything.

If your morals say it is immoral to kill a fetus, you should have starved or be starving by now, because you shouldn't be able to kill anything else either.

But you aren't, because you believe that there is something intrinsically superior about a human being, which we might as well for all intents and purposes name a 'soul'. Of course this can't be proved scientifically so the belief can be called 'faith' (or religion).

So your stance on abortion has nothing to do with science or law. This is about you foisting your religious views upon people.

a- as long as its not mature yet, then no care or respect is needed?

b- how does abortion coincide with protecting masses of people with capital punishment? And how does abortion equate to eating?

c- What does abortion respect? Not the mother. It takes away her motherhood, and turns her womb into a grave. Doesnt respect the child, obviously.. so is this just a means of "going with the flow" or maybe jumping off a bridge, or hitting women, which, might I remind you, was completely legal not so long ago...just because its legal or society thinks its best?

[Selfish_Meme]

Sailor Moon wrote:
a- as long as its not mature yet, then no care or respect is needed?
Did I not put child in there, an unborn is covered by the respect to the mother.

Sailor Moon wrote: b- how does abortion coincide with protecting masses of people with capital punishment? And how does abortion equate to eating?
They are all forms of killing...

Sailor Moon wrote: c- What does abortion respect? Not the mother. It takes away her motherhood, and turns her womb into a grave. Doesnt respect the child, obviously.. so is this just a means of "going with the flow" or maybe jumping off a bridge, or hitting women, which, might I remind you, was completely legal not so long ago...just because its legal or society thinks its best?
Half of that was way out there? If someone has an abortion and I do not oppose it, I believe I am respecting their rights to choose. They are the ones who have control of their self-respect not me.

[Sailor Moon]

What about the right to choose to hunt? It fulfills a basic instinct for humans, you know.. why not support this choice?

[Selfish_Meme]

Sailor Moon wrote: What about the right to choose to hunt? It fulfills a basic instinct for humans, you know.. why not support this choice?
Actually I do in its time and place. Obviously we did it in the past, especially when we needed to eat. Do you mean hunt for sport? Sure if its regulated properly so we don't ruin our environment and therefore kill ourselves. I have been known to go fishing. If the fish hadn't all been killed by the hungry masses it would be an even better sport. Sport hunters don't kill a millionth the percentage of animals the rest of us do just sitting down to dinner.

[Kt]

Sailor Moon wrote: I sometimes hear generalizations on here saying that pro lifers are hypocritical. I just want to ask those of you who are pro animal rights, and pro choice, why it is you stand for animal rights and not human rights?

We aren't giving animals abortions are we?

[Sailor Moon]

Selfish_Meme wrote: Sailor Moon wrote: What about the right to choose to hunt? It fulfills a basic instinct for humans, you know.. why not support this choice?
Actually I do in its time and place. Obviously we did it in the past, especially when we needed to eat. Do you mean hunt for sport? Sure if its regulated properly so we don't ruin our environment and therefore kill ourselves. I have been known to go fishing. If the fish hadn't all been killed by the hungry masses it would be an even better sport. Sport hunters don't kill a millionth the percentage of animals the rest of us do just sitting down to dinner.

Thats not true at all.. only in rich countries is meat so widely eaten. In other countries, people actually eat their greens, as well as rice, and fruit. And they happen to do this ALOT.

Think of it this way- how many Americans eat meat at every meal?

How many eat just meat, and nothing else?

Its not like the whole world is going down because the richest countries eat meat. We also grow and breed our meat sources, to provide plentitude.


Helena- Thanks for your comment, but what do you mean by that? You lost me there...

[Dezz]

The issue of animal rights is an emotional debate concerning the savage treatment of animals in America. The abortion issue is really more about the question of when life begins. They may seem related but I don't think they really are.

[Sailor Moon]

Dezz wrote: The issue of animal rights is an emotional debate concerning the savage treatment of animals in America. The abortion issue is really more about the question of when life begins. They may seem related but I don't think they really are.

What about the savage treatment of humans? Humans being torn limb from limb means nothing in relation to animal rights?

[Selfish_Meme]

Sailor Moon wrote: Its not like the whole world is going down because the richest countries eat meat. We also grow and breed our meat sources, to provide plentitude.
Actually it is going to go that way, deforestation for grazing land happened before deforestation for lumber. At the rate the world population is increasing the world needs all the arable land we can, it takes many tonnes of grain to produce a cow.

http://dieoff.org/page57.htm

Abortion is one way in which we keep population under control. Without it we would be in dire straights even quicker. Inroads need to be made on better contraception so we can discard abortion as a method of birth control. Right now though we are on the brink.

[Dezz]

Sailor Moon wrote: What about the savage treatment of humans? Humans being torn limb from limb means nothing in relation to animal rights? I completely understand your position but you are skipping a step. The abortion issue centers around the question "When does life begin?" Until that is answered your statement is all but invalid in the eyes of those that don't see a fetus as "life".

With animal rights that question doesn't exist. Animals are plainly alive, the question is centered around animal life deserving humane treatment.

[Selfish_Meme]

Dezz wrote: I completely understand your position but you are skipping a step. The abortion issue centers around the question "When does life begin?" Until that is answered your statement is all but invalid in the eyes of those that don't see a fetus as "life".

With animal rights that question doesn't exist. Animals are plainly alive, the question is centered around animal life deserving humane treatment.
While I agree with your second point, I don't agree so much with the first. Life begins at conception. In a real sense both egg and sperm are alive as well. The question is when is it morally and legally permissable to abort. I don't think there is a hope in hell of getting anyone to agree on an actual date if any at all.

[Dezz]

Selfish_Meme wrote: While I agree with your second point, I don't agree so much with the first. Life begins at conception. In a real sense both egg and sperm are alive as well. The question is when is it morally and legally permissable to abort. I don't think there is a hope in hell of getting anyone to agree on an actual date if any at all.
"Life begins at conception" is not a totally accepted position. Many argue that life does begin until that life is able to sustain itself outside the womb. Other argue that it relates to hearts beating or nervous advanced brain function etc etc.

The fact that there is no consensus on this point makes the two seperate debates significantly different IMO. Please note that I'm not arguing that you are wrong, only that the point is not settled and that this is an important distinction.

[Selfish_Meme]

Dezz wrote: "Life begins at conception" is not a totally accepted position. Many argue that life does begin until that life is able to sustain itself outside the womb. Other argue that it relates to hearts beating or nervous advanced brain function etc etc.

The fact that there is no consensus on this point makes the two seperate debates significantly different IMO. Please note that I'm not arguing that you are wrong, only that the point is not settled and that this is an important distinction.
hehe dezz, you havn't been here long, look at some of the other threads. We argued tht one for the last month. Life as in living does begin at conception, 'a life' 'a person' and 'a human being' are the ones under debate. The trouble is all these terms are absolutely s**t for describing what we want. Most of them are emotionally laden as well. Just look up life on wikipedia, a few pages worth! We need some better words, but good luck trying to get Sailor to use them :lol:

[Sailor Moon]

Selfish_Meme wrote: Dezz wrote: "Life begins at conception" is not a totally accepted position. Many argue that life does begin until that life is able to sustain itself outside the womb. Other argue that it relates to hearts beating or nervous advanced brain function etc etc.

The fact that there is no consensus on this point makes the two seperate debates significantly different IMO. Please note that I'm not arguing that you are wrong, only that the point is not settled and that this is an important distinction.
hehe dezz, you havn't been here long, look at some of the other threads. We argued tht one for the last month. Life as in living does begin at conception, 'a life' 'a person' and 'a human being' are the ones under debate. The trouble is all these terms are absolutely s**t for describing what we want. Most of them are emotionally laden as well. Just look up life on wikipedia, a few pages worth! We need some better words, but good luck trying to get Sailor to use them :lol:

Well, that wasn't a very nice thing to say about me, seeing as though its hardly accurate.

I use many terms for aborted life, embryo, fetus, preborn human, infant in training, tiny little human being with arms legs, hands, feet, and eyes that s*cks its thumb as early as the 8th week...

The simple truth is that it doesnt matter WHAT it IS, to many pro choicers, just what it IS NOT YET. Well, I really dont care what it is not yet, I care what it can be, though, and I will happily debate all of these matters with you civilly, if you care to treat the matter with some sense of dignity and respect.

[Selfish_Meme]

Sailor Moon wrote:

Well, that wasn't a very nice thing to say about me, seeing as though its hardly accurate.

I use many terms for aborted life, embryo, fetus, preborn human, infant in training, tiny little human being with arms legs, hands, feet, and eyes that s*cks its thumb as early as the 8th week...

The simple truth is that it doesnt matter WHAT it IS, to many pro choicers, just what it IS NOT YET. Well, I really dont care what it is not yet, I care what it can be, though, and I will happily debate all of these matters with you civilly, if you care to treat the matter with some sense of dignity and respect.
Sorry Sailor was just joking, no offense intended.

[Sailor Moon]

Selfish_Meme wrote: Sailor Moon wrote: Its not like the whole world is going down because the richest countries eat meat. We also grow and breed our meat sources, to provide plentitude.
Actually it is going to go that way, deforestation for grazing land happened before deforestation for lumber. At the rate the world population is increasing the world needs all the arable land we can, it takes many tonnes of grain to produce a cow.

http://dieoff.org/page57.htm

Abortion is one way in which we keep population under control. Without it we would be in dire straights even quicker. Inroads need to be made on better contraception so we can discard abortion as a method of birth control. Right now though we are on the brink.

Actually deforestation has alot more to do with housing and paper. (and medical research)

Anyways, there are plenty of trees left, and land.. This overpopulation thing is such a myth... 50 years ago, people were freaking out about the number of people there are in the world now- yet, there is over 20% more food per person now, and certainly no shortage of land space.

Try again.

http://www.justfacts.com/abortion.htm#Population
(complete with sources)


Can we get back to the topic please?

DEZZ-

I have no objection to treating animals humanely.. But what about our own unborn children? I really dont think that tearing our little ones limb from limb is exactly humane.

ALL-

I didn't want to argue abortion or population control, or when life begins, etc.. I want to debate why animals and not humans? Its illegal to break a bald Eagle's egg, you know...

[Coral]

Sailor Moon wrote: I sometimes hear generalizations on here saying that pro lifers are hypocritical. I just want to ask those of you who are pro animal rights, and pro choice, why it is you stand for animal rights and not human rights?

I think the VP of the US could find a meal without hunting quail with a shot gun. He of course is second in command in the political fight for life and compassion. Just another hypocritical poster boy.

[Sailor Moon]

Why is that hypocritical? Quail are clearly GAME, and are quite overpopulated, generally, anyways..

Sorry for bringing it up again, but didnt someone on here say something about overpopulation? :lol:

SAME SAME.