If so, that is kind of hypocritical. Maybe we should ban killing baby steers and sheep and then eating their corpses.
This is going in GD because I know that someone will turn this into an abortion debate sometime. A variant of Godwin’s Law, if you will.
My stance on abortion? I am not a woman- I shouldn’t make decisions for them.
Dragon, are you comparing human beings to animals? Because you realise that there are some radical, bigoted Humanists on this board, and this one at least is pro-choice.
Good debate principals (or at least IMHO).
Do not refer to the ‘opposition’ in inflamatory terms (for example those who oppose abortions prefer often the term “pro-life” as opposed to “anti abortionists” while those on the other side often prefer the term “pro choice” vs. pro-abortion etc.} It does nothing to advance your position, but it does set a tone, one that perhaps will not result in a rational discussion of the viewpoints, but more along the lines of “did not, did too”.
It also helps if you have some understanding of the oppositions’ position. While there certainly may be some folks who fervently believe that the sanctity of human life means that abortions are morally indefensible, and happen to be vegetarians as well, the position on the one topic does not at all imply any position on the other. they are unrelated.
There was a thread recently that tried to link feelings on abortions with feelings on the death penalty and lo and behold discovered that there were some that were against both, others in favor of both and lots more who favored one but not the other and vice versa.
FTR. I am pro choice, anti death penalty, not a vegetarian, and some times eat veal.
I mean this in the nicest possible way, incidently.
Um, veal calves are carried to term, born, and live several days (weeks?) before they’re killed. They aren’t aborted.
Nope, I don’t eat veal, bunnies, or deer either, but that has nothing to do with the life of a living human being, so it couldn’t be considered hypocritical. If I decided to have a * baby, oh, let’s say well done, * for my lunch time meal, however, THEN you could say I was nuts AND a hypocrite.
What I am saying is that the baby is alive when it is aborted, at least in late-term abortions. Bunnies are alive, and so are calves. They are babies. Why do we eat them?
OK, not really trying to start a debate, just trying to get reactions. If a mod wants this elsewhere, move it with your Godly powers.
wring, thanks for the comments. I realized I should have changed that in the title.
Wheat is alive, and so is yogurt. So? Unless a pro-lifer is equating a baby cow to a fetus, the positions are not inconsistent. I have heard some inconsistent pro-life positions, but this isn’t one of them.
This has got to be one of the most ridiculous comparisons I’ve seen around here in a while. This thread doesn’t need to be moved, it should be buried to save our dragon friend the embarassment.
Sigh. I’ll explain it.
Because they taste good. Duh.
If you’re asking why it’s OKAY to eat them, it’s because they’re animals. They have no rights. Their lives are not as important as ours.
The reason people oppose abortion is becuse they believe that fetuses are persons, meaning a human being who is entitled to legal rights. If a fetus is a human being entitled to legal rights, it’s obviously illegal to kill them, just as it would be illegal to kill you. Pro-choice people believe fetuses are NOT persons, and hence not entitled to any measure of rights.
Animals aren’t people. They have no rights; they’re basically just property. Some will disagree with this, but it’s currently the way it is.
“Someone” will turn this into an abortion debate? As if that someone isn’t you?
Not sure how that would have anything to do with Godwin’s Law…haven’t seen too many Hitler references on this topic here lately…
Perhaps I’m piling on, but the premise of your question seems to suggest an ignorance of the beliefs of those people who consider themselves pro life…
mmmmmmm… bunny…
Conflicted Bumper of the Year award goes to a car I saw the other day, with bumper stickers reading “Meat is Murder” and “Pro-Choice”…
“Meat is Murder” is a music album by The Smiths so may not necessarily imply the driver is a vegetarian. They may instead be a Smiths fan.
Also, aren’t the poster here agreeing mostly that vegetarianism and stance on abortion are unrelated? So, one could be vegetarian and pro-chioce without conflict or hypocrisy.
Well, I have known quite a few hard core veggie-mite animal rights activists, and darnit if they all aren’t Pro-Choice/Abortion. During undergrad in College I had to disect a fetal pig, and one of the aforementioned was very upset with the prospect. I think this is quite moronic.
Well I think both sides are crazy with semantics. Pro-Life is not accurate because many “pro-lifers” are pro-death penalty.
Pro-Choice is inaccurate, because that is one choice in a million, and many “pro-choice”… are anti-school vouchers etc.
Using the term Pro-Life or Pro-Choice is like the winner of the SuperBowl claiming to be the World Champion of Football (angering a lot of Soccer fans) or using the term “Miss Universe” instead of simply “Miss Earth”
My point, Mashie is that to use terms specifically offensive to your opponent does not tend to bring decorum to the debate. For example, check out any of the political threads entitled “algore” or “shrub”.
As for “crazy with semantics”, I feel that it’s a waste time debating how ‘accurate’ in your eyes (or mine, for that matter) some one else’s self proclaimed stance. And, rude to refer to some one who wishes to be called “pro-life”, as “anti Choice”.
Hopefully that stance would tend to bypass all of the bumpersticker variety arguements "it’s not a ** choice** it’s a child et al.
I’m not interested in engaging in a debate on this subject. I feel it’s futile- both arguements follow a natural path from absolutely different begining points, so it’s hardly difficult to believe that there will be different ending points.
I was attempting to demonstrate, at least, a polite way of engaging in the debate for those who wish to partake.
And, actually, you are engaging in exactly the same behavior as the OP - that is, to assume a person’s stance on the abortion issue is in any way a predictor on how they’ll believe on other issues. I see no particular conflict with a pro lifer being in favor of the death penalty (pro lifers talk of innocent human lives, not guilty ones), nor with the “pro choice” being against something else (why in the world would you assume some one saying they are pro choice on abortion would mean that they would have to be pro choice on absolutely everything? - no never mind, I don’t really care. Your assesment of the position is just inaccurate.).
Nazis Nazis Nazis.
Now die.
Red, if I read you correctly, if you wish the thread to be closed, e-mail a mod on this forum. they’ll probably do it for you. (to wait til they see the request in the text, might prolong it)
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Mashie *
**
Yeah, but pro-lifers consider the death penalty for heinous crimes to be an exceptional, atypical case. In other words, life is generally sacred, except in rare and unusual circumstances (such as preventing murderers from taking additional lives).
Choice, on the other hand, is not inherently sacred. It all depends on the morality of what you’re choosing to do.
<<Shrug>> I’m not a father, but that doesn’t stop me from opposing child abuse.
Also, please don’t forget that when Roe v. Wade was enacted, the Supreme Court was almost entirely male.