Vegans against eating animals but no response about abortions.

[DSRilk]

Yeah, you're kinda right with your statement, it really depends. But in a modern world, belief shouldn't be a part of lawmaking. That kinda makes that whole prolife or not a fucking stupid concept.

The problem is that certain things will always come down to opinion, and where life begins will be one of those things for a long time to come. Sadly, reality is too often messy that way :-/

- - - Updated - - -

As a side note, that has nothing whatsoever to do with me or the question I asked. Why did you think it relevant to lump me in there?

Because I was responding to two of you that said basically the same thing, thus warranting a single response. However, one of you also called it "pro-abortion," so instead of creating multiple posts just to address that, I figured the other person (you, I guess), could figure out that that specific part of the response didn't apply to them.

[Underverse]

Asking vegans for a logical explanation of the way they think? Not sure what you're expecting...

- - - Updated - - -

The problem is that certain things will always come down to opinion, and where life begins will be one of those things for a long time to come. Sadly, reality is too often messy that way :-/

Oh yes, the question of where life begins. The biggest red herring in any mainstream debate to date. Life doesn't begin, it continues, and therefore the question can't be answered and shouldn't be asked.

[Jademist]

Honestly the real question you should ask yourself is why pro-life people are so against Planned Parenthood when they help, y'know, to plan parenting through sex ed, contraception, etc.

If you want to reduce abortions, increase affordable access to women's healthcare including access to contraception.

[Deleted]

This is a terrible analogy to try and make. One is about not harming animals, the other is about being free to rid your body of a parasite (bodily autonomy).

So you are a parasite and I would be free to kill you?

[slavetoKadie]

Veganism is a very interesting choice -it is good to see that these types of questions and lifestyles are on people's minds.

[DSRilk]

Asking vegans for a logical explanation of the way they think? Not sure what you're expecting...

- - - Updated - - -



Oh yes, the question of where life begins. The biggest red herring in any mainstream debate to date. Life doesn't begin, it continues, and therefore the question can't be answered and shouldn't be asked.

That's your personal definition. A skin cell is living, but people don't consider a slide tackle in soccer attempted murder just because it's likely to cause a skin abrasion that kills some of those cells. Heck, even brain cells are living and killed when consuming alcohol, but loss of life is not why anyone considers alcohol bad (if they do at all). We're talking about what defines human life. For you, humanity begins at conception (I assume). For me and many others, that's not the case. When "life" begins is not a red herring. It's the only and entire debate.

[Dispraise]

said basically the same thing

But I didn't. Your response had nothing to do with my question, or my interest, and over half of it was merely a tangent that I take exception to even being associated with.

If you quote me, respond to me. Or, just don't.

[DSRilk]

It actually does. All the building blocks are there at conception to start a new journey as a human being. It is life.

A single skin cell holds your entire genetic code, and it's alive. That doesn't mean it alone is a person. A human being, at least for many of us, is defined by far more than the existence of the necessary building blocks.

- - - Updated - - -

But I didn't. Your response had nothing to do with my question, or my interest, and over half of it was merely a tangent that I take exception to even being associated with.

If you quote me, respond to me. Or, just don't.

Sorry, but you are mistaken. Let me show you by taking your quote I used, and first lines of my response (all in italics):

But when you're talking about a group of people that thinks eating eggs is cruelty to animals, how is that not cognitive dissonance?

Because that's not why they don't eat eggs. They don't eat eggs because they believe the conditions in which the animals are kept in order to get the eggs and milk is unacceptable.

My entire response was this plus ONE additional sentence. It seems pretty clear to me that my comment was in direct response to the part of your statement that I quoted.

[Underverse]

That's your personal definition. A skin cell is living, but people don't consider a slide tackle in soccer attempted murder just because it's likely to cause a skin abrasion that kills some of those cells. Heck, even brain cells are living and killed when consuming alcohol, but loss of life is not why anyone considers alcohol bad (if they do at all). We're talking about what defines human life. For you, humanity begins at conception (I assume). For me and many others, that's not the case. When "life" begins is not a red herring. It's the only and entire debate.

Then you're talking about personhood, and that's a construct with no set definition. And this is still not the right debate to be having, because it ignores tons of other problems that many people would set aside as 'special cases' - when in reality, we can get better resolution and come up with an idea for when it is right or wrong to abort that includes special cases in its calculation.

One simple way to do that would be to consider the potential of the fetus. If the fetus is the result of rape, and the mother will never be able to love it, that fetus loses significant potential and the morality of abortion tips in favor of acceptable. If the fetus would be born into a loving family, accepted by all and in a resource rich environment, the potential of that fetus is high. But then, if there's a genetic disease that would cripple the fetus, potential is highly diminished and the morality of abortion increases.

If you consider personhood instead, how would you deal with cases of rape, cases where the fetus has severe disabilities, and so forth? You can't. You just call them special cases. It's a poor argument, with little nuance.

Also, your assumption is wrong. First, because I don't care when humanity or personhood begins, for the reasons outlines above. And second, because I think the mother's desire to have a baby has an enormous impact on the fetus' potential to thrive, and is therefore the primary consideration to be made in these cases. Some might say that's 'pro-choice' - but not for the oft-cited reason of bodily autonomy, which is another overly simplistic argument.

[Dispraise]

Sorry, but you are mistaken.

Uh huh.

My entire response

I know what your response was. I don't care about it. At all.

So unless you have anything to say that would be of actual interest to me, we're done.

[GennGreymane]

the game of the usual MMO-C poster gets weaker every day.

[Machismo]

So you are a parasite and I would be free to kill you?

Well, am I a harmful organism inside of you?

Otherwise, your argument is fucking stupid.

[DSRilk]

Then you're talking about personhood, and that's a construct with no set definition. And this is still not the right debate to be having, because it ignores tons of other problems that many people would set aside as 'special cases' - when in reality, we can get better resolution and come up with an idea for when it is right or wrong to abort that includes special cases in its calculation.

One simple way to do that would be to consider the potential of the fetus. If the fetus is the result of rape, and the mother will never be able to love it, that fetus loses significant potential and the morality of abortion tips in favor of acceptable. If the fetus would be born into a loving family, accepted by all and in a resource rich environment, the potential of that fetus is high. But then, if there's a genetic disease that would cripple the fetus, potential is highly diminished and the morality of abortion increases.

If you consider personhood instead, how would you deal with cases of rape, cases where the fetus has severe disabilities, and so forth? You can't. You just call them special cases. It's a poor argument, with little nuance.

Also, your assumption is wrong. First, because I don't care when humanity or personhood begins, for the reasons outlines above. And second, because I think the mother's desire to have a baby has an enormous impact on the fetus' potential to thrive, and is therefore the primary consideration to be made in these cases. Some might say that's 'pro-choice' - but not for the oft-cited reason of bodily autonomy, which is another overly simplistic argument.

I can agree to using your term "personhood", though I disagree with your assertion that it is not the right debate. I don't believe potential is at all relevant to the decision. A person of low intellect; a person who won't be loved; none of that impacts their right to life. At least in my mind. There is only one relevant item: are they a person.

If I use personhood, how do I deal with cases of rape and so forth? Very easily. If an abortion is had before reaching personhood, then abortion is fine. Once it passes into personhood, it is not okay. Whether the mother feels horrible about it or the baby is mentally handicapped is irrelevant once it reaches the line of personhood. Sometimes the only options in life are crappy option 1 and crappy option 2. This would be one of those times.

Re: the assumption, that's fair. It doesn't really change my argument, as it was only there as a point of contrast. So it sounds like you judge the right to abortion based on potential where as I judge it based on to existence of "personhood." I don't agree with the way you judge where the line should be drawn, but I don't think it's an invalid approach. I will say though, that I think bodily autonomy is a really bad argument to use.

- - - Updated - - -

Uh huh.



I know what your response was. I don't care about it. At all.

So unless you have anything to say that would be of actual interest to me, we're done.

My response was directly related to what you said, thus your statement was objectively incorrect. I'm sorry you don't find a reasoned and non-confrontational response interesting. If you're looking for a baseless fight instead of a reasoned conversation, then indeed you need not respond, because that is all I have or will give you.

[Mistame]

So you are a parasite and I would be free to kill you?

You do know what a parasite is, right?

[Dastreus]

I'd counter that with the question as to why pro-life people continue to eat meat.

and why some are pro-death penalty, or anti universal health care.

[Delekii]

From a purely theoretical stance, the not eating animal products part of veganism is about the agency of the producing animal, not the potential offspring. Vegans don't eat eggs because they "belong to" the chicken, not because they might turn into a baby chick.

The same thing applies to protecting a beach with turtle eggs or whatever other examples there are. Pro-choice people are about protecting the agency of the parent in exactly the same way. Eggs are also fundamentally different to live birth; once laid they don't actively take resources from the host unless the host chooses to supply them. Many species lay eggs and then never see them again.

[Grythletubs]

I was just replying to the post that said a foetus wasn't a life. And you're right, it is, but it's just an egg and then it gets replaced with another if it doesn't get fertilised, however if it does, that now is on it's way to becoming a human.

But it's just a fetus, it can get replaced with another if the woman doesn't wish to give birth.

With your logic you should be crying a lot more over the millions of sperms that die when you masturbate over what a woman chooses to do with her body.

[Louisa Bannon]

Vegans don't eat eggs because they "belong to" the chicken, not because they might turn into a baby chick.

I don't think there's any kind of one size fits all reason for those kinds of choices. That's just one narrative.

[Tulune]

Remember that you're dealing with pro-birthers.

Slight correction, as most "pro life" people don't give a fuck after the kid is born. OT, whether fetus is not equal to an already developed animal or not doesn't really matter because it's a non sequitur argument. Access to abortion is about bodily autonomy. No one should be forced to carry and have a child they don't want. Period.

[The One Percent]

I'd counter that with the question as to why pro-life people continue to eat meat.

Some people value the lives of human beings over other species of animals.