Vegans and contraceptives/abortion.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by aelle

Have you even read this thread? I think we established veganism isn't about "life" on page 1.

veganism for health isn't. Veganism for moral or ethical reasons IS.

[aelle]

I explained on page 1 that it isn't (I am an ethical vegan) and have no interest in going in a circular argument. Feel free to go back and read, in the meantime I am out of here.

[hydroxide]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

No, not really. ALL life is sacred. Waste not be not. If it's for ethical reasons, then being pro choice is hypocritical. If it's a health choice for themselves, then have all the abortions you want. If you are concerned with animal suffering, and are pro choice, you are a hypocrite.

"ALL life is sacred" - is the rapist's life as sacred as the life of the woman he impregnated against her will? Are criminals sacred? What about deadly viruses or bacteria? They're alive!

Depends on what ethical reasons. "For the benefit of the planet" is an ethical reason. And it does not depend on sanctity of life. Which is why I said it depended on WHY they were vegan. ("So. It seems to depend on the individual vegan, and also, the reasons for their veganism.")

"If you are concerned with animal suffering, and are pro choice, you are a hypocrite" - Unless you value non-human animals more than humans. Which is a reasonable view, imo, considering the damage we are doing to the planet. Also consistent with the above concern for the planet.

"When vegans go for best for the environment, it's not that they want the trees to survive. They want all living creatures to survive. And a fetus is a living creature, is it not?" - It fits the biological definition of life, but not of an autonomous individual (At least not until, say, 8 months along.) By the way, cancer cells and the aforementioned destructive bacteria fit the biological definition of life .

Preserving all life isn't the same as what's best for the planet. Preserving all life will lead to overpopulation which will negatively impact the planet.

If humans go extinct, it's better for the other species. I know vegans who associated with VHEMT. The goal is often to minimize human impact overall, which is again, an ethical reason that doesn't have to do with the sanctity of life.

All living creatures isn't the same as all species. There are enough excess humans here that we could sustain a much lower fertility rate. And if we did, it would save us from having our population forcibly reduced via disease, famine, resource exhaustion, war, etc. rather than voluntary childlessness which is much less violent. One can be pro-choice in order to support voluntary childlessness for the benefit of the planet, and also be vegan for promoting the benefit of the planet - nothing related to life or sanctity.

So I guess I'm fooling myself - which makes me wonder why you're still responding to a stupid fool .

[russianrocket]

lol newbies, oh so much in your post that I need to reply to.


But, for today, I'm going to be. So in my absence, I'll post this, and I'll just have to get back to you tomorrow.

NSFW

YouTube - George Carlin - Saving the Planet

[hydroxide]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

lol newbies, oh so much in your post that I need to reply to.


But, for today, I'm going to be. So in my absence, I'll post this, and I'll just have to get back to you tomorrow.

NSFW

YouTube - George Carlin - Saving the Planet

Don't argue with fools like me, I'll bring you down to my level and beat you with experience.

I was last here a year ago and I expect to take a similar absence, so see you near the end of 2011!

[LunInSpectra]

The original poster of this thread seems to be challenging the activist nature of many vegans by presenting evidence based on extremes. It doesn't seem anymore healthy for this forum than any other troll-started threads and it's not worth getting riled up about.

Closed.

lol jk -- but seriously.

[Weena]

Originally Posted by LunInSpectra

The original poster of this thread seems to be challenging the activist nature of many vegans by presenting evidence based on extremes. It doesn't seem anymore healthy for this forum than any other troll-started threads and it's not worth getting riled up about.

Closed.

lol jk -- but seriously.

I don't know i thought the question was quite legitimate... I found it interesting to read the answers.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by LunInSpectra

The original poster of this thread seems to be challenging the activist nature of many vegans by presenting evidence based on extremes. It doesn't seem anymore healthy for this forum than any other troll-started threads and it's not worth getting riled up about.

Closed.

lol jk -- but seriously.

Originally Posted by Weena

I don't know i thought the question was quite legitimate... I found it interesting to read the answers.

Thank you. Don't know where a person with 3 posts calling my thread troll like lol. I had a legitimate question, and I wanted to know the answer to it. Did I have a previous judgment before I asked it? Well, I am human.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by aelle

I explained on page 1 that it isn't (I am an ethical vegan) and have no interest in going in a circular argument. Feel free to go back and read, in the meantime I am out of here.

Your an ethical vegan, and you don't extend your ethics towards all living creatures. I read your post, multiple times. The first one was mainly about eating eggs vs aborting a fetus. Didn't really mean much in the context of this thread. You obviously value life, but you put a definition of what life deserves the most value. While at the same time being a feminist, so that even if a fetus' life has value, it doesn't supercede that of a womens rights. Who's to say that a fetus isn't suffering? How long into the pregnancy do you consider there to be no suffering?

[Weena]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

Don't know where a person with 3 posts calling my thread troll like lol.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by hydroxide

"ALL life is sacred" - is the rapist's life as sacred as the life of the woman he impregnated against her will? Are criminals sacred? What about deadly viruses or bacteria? They're alive!

Depends on what ethical reasons. "For the benefit of the planet" is an ethical reason. And it does not depend on sanctity of life. Which is why I said it depended on WHY they were vegan. ("So. It seems to depend on the individual vegan, and also, the reasons for their veganism.")

"If you are concerned with animal suffering, and are pro choice, you are a hypocrite" - Unless you value non-human animals more than humans. Which is a reasonable view, imo, considering the damage we are doing to the planet. Also consistent with the above concern for the planet.

"When vegans go for best for the environment, it's not that they want the trees to survive. They want all living creatures to survive. And a fetus is a living creature, is it not?" - It fits the biological definition of life, but not of an autonomous individual (At least not until, say, 8 months along.) By the way, cancer cells and the aforementioned destructive bacteria fit the biological definition of life .

Preserving all life isn't the same as what's best for the planet. Preserving all life will lead to overpopulation which will negatively impact the planet.

If humans go extinct, it's better for the other species. I know vegans who associated with VHEMT. The goal is often to minimize human impact overall, which is again, an ethical reason that doesn't have to do with the sanctity of life.

All living creatures isn't the same as all species. There are enough excess humans here that we could sustain a much lower fertility rate. And if we did, it would save us from having our population forcibly reduced via disease, famine, resource exhaustion, war, etc. rather than voluntary childlessness which is much less violent. One can be pro-choice in order to support voluntary childlessness for the benefit of the planet, and also be vegan for promoting the benefit of the planet - nothing related to life or sanctity.

So I guess I'm fooling myself - which makes me wonder why you're still responding to a stupid fool .

If a person believes all life is sacred, then YES, a rapists life is just as sacred as the life of the woman. Same with criminals. Getting into viruses and bacteria is a whole other subject matter. If we build machines out of organic material similar to what is in our cells, is it alive? A virus is just a stand of DNA or RNA encased in a protein shell. There are after all certain levels as to how far we could take, protecting all life. But someone who cares about ALL life, does not pass judgment on which life is more important then the next. Who the hell are you to judge that anyways?

For the benefit of the planet? Ethics towards the planet? If you watched the video, I think you'd know how silly that sounds. The planet is just fine and was fine, and will be fine, for ever and ever. Us putting a label on whether the planet is ok or not, is just silly. It's not good or bad, it just IS. It does it's thing the way it was meant to, and nothing we can do will ever effect that. It can shake us off like the flees that we are, at any time that it feels necessary. People protecting the planet is about as selfish as it gets. it's protecting the plant for LIFE, there for protecting the planet for ethical reasons depends on life. If humans really cared about the planet, they'd kill themselves, but because we are selfish, we don't. We want to life in a pretty world, where our kids can enjoy the beauty and their kids and so on. The OUTSPOKEN vegans, are the ones I'm referring to, as the non out spoken ones, don't really matter. Because they aren't pushing their vegan-ism on anyone. They are what they are, because that's just want they want out of life.

If you value non human animals more then humans, well, then you have a whole set of other issues. And it is NOT a reasonable view, because we aren't doing any "damage" to the planet. Why is it damage? Is a volcano erupting, damage? Because WE did it, then it's damage? What constitutes damage exactly? Something that can never be reversed? Because nothing like that exists. The only damage we'll cause, is the damage that won't allow for US to survive. No one cares about the millions of species that have died long before we came on here. And no one will care once every species alive today no longer exists either. Because at that point, there will be yet another species, caring about the planet. Trying it's hardest to save it, by nothing but mere vain attempts.

When is a baby an autonomous individual? If you throw a baby out on it's ass, after it's born, will it survive? I guess it doesn't matter if we kill it then either, does it?

There is no negative impact on the planet! I don't think you are understanding that. If we kill ourselves off, then no negative effects will be felt. As long as we are alive, is when negative effects are negative effects. All because we are here to perceive them to be negative.

What does human impact cause exactly? The non life part of the planet, will not get hurt. Only LIVING things will get hurt with our impact, there for EVERYTHING has to do with sanctity of life for people like that. If humans go instinct, who's to say it's better for other species? Cows might spread uncontrollably and eat EVERYTHING. Just because people assume that with out people, everything on this planet would be great, doesn't mean they are right.

Preserving all life might lead to over population, but the planet will handle that itself. It wouldn't negatively effect the planet tho. The resources of this planet aren't important to this planet. It's not like we TAKE away from the planet. It all goes back into it. Overpopulation, will effect the population, and kill other species, which will in turn effect the population even more.

I'm ok with lower fertility rates. As I am very much pro choice. But I also don't value animal lives the way most vegans do. You can't just pic and choose which species is more important. That's called specism. It's either all or nothing. " well this one is cute, so it's ok" "but this one is ugly, so I don't care if it dies". Picking and choosing makes you no better then anyone else. Because, well, YOU AREN"T.

Lets give condoms to everyone. As many as possible, Teach real sex ed.

But you wanna know what? The people having abortions, aren't the ones who would over populate this planet. It's the third world countries who are doing it. The more kids they have, the more workers they have for their fields. So tryign to claim abortion as a way to cull the population, is as fool hardy as tryign to "save the planet". People are always focusing on the things that have the least effect, because they don't have control over the things with the most effect. All so they can sleep at night. I sleep just fine at night tho.

In conclusion, there is no benefit of the planet. Is it the benefit of US and the animals we love so much, which is all about life ans the sanctity of it. It's not about the pretty trees and flowers, as with out life, there wouldn't be any of that.

I said you are fooling yourself if you don't think that peta and organizations like it would love to legislate what we eat. I guess you agree, because you never commented on that.

[russianrocket]

big wall of text!!!

[aelle]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

Your an ethical vegan, and you don't extend your ethics towards all living creatures. I read your post, multiple times. The first one was mainly about eating eggs vs aborting a fetus. Didn't really mean much in the context of this thread. You obviously value life, but you put a definition of what life deserves the most value. While at the same time being a feminist, so that even if a fetus' life has value, it doesn't supercede that of a womens rights. Who's to say that a fetus isn't suffering? How long into the pregnancy do you consider there to be no suffering?

My personal ethics are to do no harm, and to prevent harm. I do extend them to all creatures able to feel pain.

It's not about the value of life. It's about the value of quality of life. See the difference? It's not about being alive or not, it's about being alive in conditions of high suffering and oppression, or not (the alternatives being being alive in conditions where your well being is the primary concern of your caretakers, not being conceived, or if neither are an option, putting an end to your life).
Plants don't have a nervous system. I believe the scientific consensus is that foeti do not have a nervous system able to feel pain until 14 weeks for sure, and beyond that is still questionned. But grown humans, dogs and cows feel pain.

Beyond times and species when there is no possibility of pain and anything is fair game in my book, it's a trade-off - how much pain, abuse, poverty, lack of love, etc. does one consider acceptable. And that is a very personal choice.

In the hope of cutting short to questions asked a million times:
- I fully admit that veganism does not encompass all ethical concerns, nor is it the only ethical lifestyle.
- I have no qualms about pet chickens and their eggs, as long as the animal's well being come before profitability
- Plants, bacteria, viruses are alive, and like all living creatures interact with their environment in an aim to increase survival chances, but do not feel pain by any scientific definition of the word.

[Gracestars]

K, I'm cool to come out of the closet...

I had an abortion at 19. I'm not going to go into the hows and whys of it, except to say that I am thoroughly glad I did. It, in my mind, was the most responsible decision I could have made.

I'm disclosing this because I want to respond to a couple of issues here;

1. Yes, terminations are sometimes experienced by women as traumatic, and emotionally distressing. But not all. There is nothing inherently traumatising about having an abortion IMO. Unlike luci, I did not experience it as horrible, or scary. It was just very very weird. There was virtually no emotional or physical recovery time in my case, and I have not been affected by it in any way that I am aware of. What it did do is prevent a number of lives from being screwed up.

2. I fail to see how veganism and abortion can be connected in any way. A fetus is just that. A fetus. It is not a life, it is not a baby, not yet anyway. An abortion is not an act of killing a life. Of course, this is a pro-choice argument (and fact as far as I'm concerned), so all you pro-lifers will disagree. Meh. I couldn't care less, that is except, if you try to get in my (and other's) face about it.

[Weena]

It's also something that made me wonder when i read the (bad taste) joke at the start of the topic... "the remains" of the fetus, would be like the size of a pea. And (pardon me for bringing this up) but coming from a former soldier who has no worries about killing fully grown humans (dunno if he did or not but it's kind of in the contract) it just did not add up so much. American Dad quote "Because we are republicans, and the only way we do not like to kill is that way".

Aelle, I like your take on veganism . Gracestars, thanks for your honesty .

[elucidate]

I guess mine was different...there was no anaesthetic, and the "laughing gas" didn't work. There were also some other details that caused trauma, physical and emotional distress for me that had far reaching consequences, which I don't care to share...but yeah, I can see that it wouldn't be the same for others.

Originally Posted by Gracestars

K, I'm cool to come out of the closet...

I had an abortion at 19. I'm not going to go into the hows and whys of it, except to say that I am thoroughly glad I did. It, in my mind, was the most responsible decision I could have made.

I'm disclosing this because I want to respond to a couple of issues here;

1. Yes, terminations are sometimes experienced by women as traumatic, and emotionally distressing. But not all. There is nothing inherently traumatising about having an abortion IMO. Unlike luci, I did not experience it as horrible, or scary. It was just very very weird. There was virtually no emotional or physical recovery time in my case, and I have not been affected by it in any way that I am aware of. What it did do is prevent a number of lives from being screwed up.

2. I fail to see how veganism and abortion can be connected in any way. A fetus is just that. A fetus. It is not a life, it is not a baby, not yet anyway. An abortion is not an act of killing a life. Of course, this is a pro-choice argument (and fact as far as I'm concerned), so all you pro-lifers will disagree. Meh. I couldn't care less, that is except, if you try to get in my (and other's) face about it.

[Weena]

Originally Posted by elucidate

I guess mine was different...there was no anaesthetic, and the "laughing gas" didn't work. There were also some other details that caused trauma, physical and emotional distress for me that had far reaching consequences, which I don't care to share...but yeah, I can see that it wouldn't be the same for others.

Sounds like my experience of it. Maybe we came across sadistic clinics? Since i hear some people just have to swallow a pill and it's all done... dunno.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by Weena

Sounds like my experience of it. Maybe we came across sadistic clinics? Since i hear some people just have to swallow a pill and it's all done... dunno.

Well the clinic I went to simply didn't stock anaesthetics on the weekend, which was the only time I could go. I'd travelled half a day, interstate, to get there, so I sort of couldn't just leave.
They gave no real reason as to WHY they refused to keep anaesthetics there on the weekend, I was just given laughing gas instead...which isn't a painkiller, and didn't cause me to laugh either. It was more painful and horrifying, than simply scary and horrible!

[Gracestars]

Originally Posted by elucidate

Well the clinic I went to simply didn't stock anaesthetics on the weekend, which was the only time I could go. I'd travelled half a day, interstate, to get there, so I sort of couldn't just leave.
They gave no real reason as to WHY they refused to keep anaesthetics there on the weekend, I was just given laughing gas instead...which isn't a painkiller, and didn't cause me to laugh either. It was more painful and horrifying, than simply scary and horrible!

I'm really sorry you had that experience, luci. I was wondering why it was so horrific, I think I have a better idea now.

I was given a twilight injection, and was out cold for the whole thing.

[Weena]

Originally Posted by elucidate

I was just given laughing gas instead...which isn't a painkiller, and didn't cause me to laugh either.

The upside of this is that you know what to say to midwives if you give birth one day...

"Do you want laughing gas? It really works..."

"Give me an epidural you freakin' ♥♥♥♥♥!!!"



(Eh I'm allowed to make a joke since i went through that too...no laughing gas for me though that day, just plain butchery).

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by Gracestars

I'm really sorry you had that experience, luci. I was wondering why it was so horrific, I think I have a better idea now.

I was given a twilight injection, and was out cold for the whole thing.

Lucky thing!

That's only half the story from me.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by Weena

The upside of this is that you know what to say to midwives if you give birth one day...

"Do you want laughing gas? It really works..."

"Give me an epidural you freakin' ♥♥♥♥♥!!!"



(Eh I'm allowed to make a joke since i went through that too...no laughing gas for me though that day, just plain butchery).

Yes...with my best sarcasm/psycho face...no bones about it.

[Elrond]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

By the way, you aren't in a position to be saying she sounds like a child for saying such things.
To the men: at what point in your life did you feel like a man?

Appeal to accomplishment.

[Elrond]

Originally Posted by hydroxide

"ALL life is sacred" - is the rapist's life as sacred as the life of the woman he impregnated against her will? Are criminals sacred? What about deadly viruses or bacteria? They're alive!

Viruses aren't exactly alive..

[Elrond]

Originally Posted by Weena

I wonder what men's opinions would be if they were the gender getting pregnant. I think it would change a lot of opinions.

More Americans ?Pro-Life? Than ?Pro-Choice? for First Time

49% of women "pro life", 54% of men "pro life".

44% of women "pro choice", 39% of men "pro choice".

One has to also consider that men are probably (I tried to find some statistic to support this, but I think it's accurate) more likely to vote republican/conservative etc. So even if one was to transform men into being able to incubate life, one cannot immediately assume that this would mean that the percentage of men being "pro choice" would become equal to the current amount of "pro choice" women, since having this opinion often correlates with republican or conservative values (so the opinion doesn't totally hinge on being the sex that doesn't incubates life, but also correlates with a "conservative paradigm" as a whole). And since the current difference between men and womens opinions (according to this research) isn't that big to begin with, and given that mens opinions wouldn't necessarily become equal to that of womens (given my "conservative paradigm" argument) and also assuming that you won't quantify this potential increase in "pro choice" men as "a lot", (tl;dr: ) it seems that your hypothesis is false.

(this argument ignores any larger historical arguments but assumes that this hypothetical metamorphosis and its impact on opinions is seen in a relatively short time span.)

[Elrond]

Originally Posted by Sain Outre Longfang

Sounds like you put a bunch of conditions out on what could happen. Heard about them, seen them, done them. Life is hell, what do you want? Paradise?
Maybe when you die. If any of us are lucky.

Unless life serves a purpose besides its intristic value (which value is questionable if it is hell) like say, a good afterlife (which you don't seem to think is a certainty, either), then I would think that such a person doesn't want to bring forth children to a life that is hell. In fact, abortion could be viewed as a particulary benevolent action, if one is of the experience/opinion that life is hell. Do you plan on having children one day?

This assumes that you indeed think that life is hell, and that it wasn't just some exaggeration.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by Elrond

Viruses aren't exactly alive..

This is an old debate.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by Elrond

Unless life serves a purpose besides its intristic value (which value is questionable if it is hell) like say, a good afterlife (which you don't seem to think is a certainty, either), then I would think that such a person doesn't want to bring forth children to a life that is hell. In fact, abortion could be viewed as a particulary benevolent action, if one is of the experience/opinion that life is hell. Do you plan on having children one day?

This assumes that you indeed think that life is hell, and that it wasn't just some exaggeration.

Good point. I know that I wouldn't want to bring a child into a life that is hell.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Elrond

Appeal to accomplishment.

I should care about some made up term, written by a person who doesn't even have proper grammar, why?

this TRUMPS your appeal to accomplishment

Pot calling the kettle black - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Elrond]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

I should care about some made up term, written by a person who doesn't even have proper grammar, why?

Why should anyone care about anything? Why should someone care about whether or not they are acting like adults? etc.

Originally Posted by russianrocket

some made up term,

What isn't a made up term?

Originally Posted by russianrocket

who doesn't even have proper grammar,

Pretty irrelevant in this context.

Originally Posted by russianrocket

this TRUMPS your appeal to accomplishment

Pot calling the kettle black - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Depends on what you prioritize are, since the two have different concerns. Appeal to Accomplishment has to do with logical fallacies (the argument), and pot calling the kettle black has to do with hypocrisy (the person making the argument). If I say that someone isn't an adult, whether or not I am an adult has no bearing on the truthfulness of my statement. If I am not an adult, I will probably have less knowledge about being an adult, and thus less capable of judging the adult-ness of other persons. BUT, the fact that I am not an adult (hypothetical) has no bearing on the truthfulness of me saying that Jane isn't an adult. If I say that she isn't an adult because she is 16 (and the criteria for being an adult is being 18 or older), whether or not I am 18 or older has no bearing on the truthfulness of this statement. If I chastise someone for being purple, and I am purple myself, I'm a hypocrite. But that doesn't in itself detract from the truthfulness of me saying that someone is purple. Thus you asserting that someone can't speak on being a grown up because they do not act as one themselves, is in itself (i.e. without there being some collectively agreed upon rule that people who aren't X may not speak on being X) fallacious.

But if you don't want to be logically sound, this doesn't have to concern you, like anything (nothing HAS to concern anyone).

Tu quoque - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia