Is it possible to be VEGAN and PRO-CHOICE at the same time?
Notice: I am not vegan, but am pro-choice. I respect vegans and believe what they are saying is rational and just, yet I simply want to play devil's advocate here and see the responses.
If one is an "ethical vegan"- a vegan who has chosen to be vegan primarily for ethical reasons, such as stopping "unnecessary" animal suffering, is it then logically inconsistent for them to be "pro-choice?".
If a woman fell pregnant and simply decided she did not want the baby, surely the fetuses autonomy is being violated and it is unnecessarily being murdered. One can argue the female has the right to chose whether to raise the child or not which is true, yet a far less painful alternative would be to simply give up the child up for adoption or foster. The option of abortion is therefore clearly unnecessary and creates suffering and pain. Thus surely if you are an ethical vegan you must also be pro-life? How can you justify the murder of an unborn baby, yet cannot justify the consumption of an unfertilized chickens egg?
There are exceptions to every rule. In this case I think most vegans would probably kill an animal to survive if NECESSARY on a stranded island for example. Similarly with abortion let's already state the most obvious exception of a woman being raped. Because her autonomy was violated I will assume everyone here (assuming we are all rational) accept abortion in such cases.
Thoughts?
If one is an "ethical vegan"- a vegan who has chosen to be vegan primarily for ethical reasons, such as stopping "unnecessary" animal suffering, is it then logically inconsistent for them to be "pro-choice?".
If a woman fell pregnant and simply decided she did not want the baby, surely the fetuses autonomy is being violated and it is unnecessarily being murdered. One can argue the female has the right to chose whether to raise the child or not which is true, yet a far less painful alternative would be to simply give up the child up for adoption or foster. The option of abortion is therefore clearly unnecessary and creates suffering and pain. Thus surely if you are an ethical vegan you must also be pro-life? How can you justify the murder of an unborn baby, yet cannot justify the consumption of an unfertilized chickens egg?
There are exceptions to every rule. In this case I think most vegans would probably kill an animal to survive if NECESSARY on a stranded island for example. Similarly with abortion let's already state the most obvious exception of a woman being raped. Because her autonomy was violated I will assume everyone here (assuming we are all rational) accept abortion in such cases.
Thoughts?
Scroll to see replies
Is it possible to be VEGAN and PRO-CHOICE at the same time?
Yes. Whether it is logically consistent, however, is arguable.
(edited 7 years ago)
I'm both vegan and pro-choice. I'll try and outline my own personal ethical code, although I'm aware that I'm only speaking for myself and not the rest of the vegan community, nor the pro-choice community.
Why I'm vegan:
I've been vegetarian all my life because I was raised that way, and the thought of eating meat makes me feel ill; I've tried bacon a couple of times when I thought I wanted to eat meat but it just tasted disgusting and made me very sick afterwards. I've never felt much compulsion to eat meat and so it's been easy to be vegetarian. I'm vegan because of the awful practices within the dairy industry. I also feel healthier (despite eating tons of vegan junk food like pringles/dark chocolate/oreos!) which is good. Cutting out dairy has been easy, and I know that by living this lifestyle, I'm preventing the suffering of some animals -- I know the animals are still going to be killed, but it's supply and demand: if the demand for meat/dairy goes down, the supply will surely follow in a few years.
Why I'm pro-choice:
If a woman is considering an abortion, it's primarily because she feels like she would not be able to adequately look after the child for a plethora of reasons: financially handicapped, young mother (under 18 possibly), child of rape/incest, childbirth posing a serious problem to her health, hereditary defects, etc. The child, if abortion ceased to exist, would be born and brought up suffering the consequences of their mother's rash pregnancy. I believe it's wrong to inflict suffering on that child who would either be brought up in a cycle of abuse, or put up for adoption/fostering, which would arguably limit the child's potential. You're just introducing a child into the world without its consent and subjecting it to a life (more likely than not) of poverty.
How can you justify the murder of an unborn baby, yet cannot justify the consumption of an unfertilized chickens egg?:
Interesting question. I wouldn't say it counts as murder until 20 or so weeks where it could survive if given birth to, because to me, a living thing is one with consciousness, and so you could argue that a baby isn't able to be murdered until it leaves the womb and is able to survive away from the mother (ie through incubation and medical care). However, the consumption of the egg isn't the issue. The issue is the treatment of the chickens which produce the egg: factory farming increases stress levels of chickens, doesn't allow them to roam around naturally and decreases their lifespan etc. I recognise that free range eggs are an option and honestly, I'm not totally opposed to consuming eggs from pet chickens, as long as they receive adequate care etc. However, most of the eggs found in products we all eat, like supermarket made cakes, aren't free range but are factory farmed. Furthermore, the consumption of those eggs increases the demand and so the supply goes up, allowing for the barbaric practices of factory farming to continue.
It's an unassailable fact that animals suffer in the meat and dairy industry. For meat, the animals are separated from their parents within hours of being born, and are killed when they're young. For dairy, cows are artificially inseminated and their lifespans are reduced by around 80% through this, and more often than not they're treated awfully by low paid farmers or workers and are butchered in inhumane ways. Similarly, a child who was born unwanted would suffer more in life than they would in death in the womb.
Why I'm vegan:
I've been vegetarian all my life because I was raised that way, and the thought of eating meat makes me feel ill; I've tried bacon a couple of times when I thought I wanted to eat meat but it just tasted disgusting and made me very sick afterwards. I've never felt much compulsion to eat meat and so it's been easy to be vegetarian. I'm vegan because of the awful practices within the dairy industry. I also feel healthier (despite eating tons of vegan junk food like pringles/dark chocolate/oreos!) which is good. Cutting out dairy has been easy, and I know that by living this lifestyle, I'm preventing the suffering of some animals -- I know the animals are still going to be killed, but it's supply and demand: if the demand for meat/dairy goes down, the supply will surely follow in a few years.
Why I'm pro-choice:
If a woman is considering an abortion, it's primarily because she feels like she would not be able to adequately look after the child for a plethora of reasons: financially handicapped, young mother (under 18 possibly), child of rape/incest, childbirth posing a serious problem to her health, hereditary defects, etc. The child, if abortion ceased to exist, would be born and brought up suffering the consequences of their mother's rash pregnancy. I believe it's wrong to inflict suffering on that child who would either be brought up in a cycle of abuse, or put up for adoption/fostering, which would arguably limit the child's potential. You're just introducing a child into the world without its consent and subjecting it to a life (more likely than not) of poverty.
How can you justify the murder of an unborn baby, yet cannot justify the consumption of an unfertilized chickens egg?:
Interesting question. I wouldn't say it counts as murder until 20 or so weeks where it could survive if given birth to, because to me, a living thing is one with consciousness, and so you could argue that a baby isn't able to be murdered until it leaves the womb and is able to survive away from the mother (ie through incubation and medical care). However, the consumption of the egg isn't the issue. The issue is the treatment of the chickens which produce the egg: factory farming increases stress levels of chickens, doesn't allow them to roam around naturally and decreases their lifespan etc. I recognise that free range eggs are an option and honestly, I'm not totally opposed to consuming eggs from pet chickens, as long as they receive adequate care etc. However, most of the eggs found in products we all eat, like supermarket made cakes, aren't free range but are factory farmed. Furthermore, the consumption of those eggs increases the demand and so the supply goes up, allowing for the barbaric practices of factory farming to continue.
It's an unassailable fact that animals suffer in the meat and dairy industry. For meat, the animals are separated from their parents within hours of being born, and are killed when they're young. For dairy, cows are artificially inseminated and their lifespans are reduced by around 80% through this, and more often than not they're treated awfully by low paid farmers or workers and are butchered in inhumane ways. Similarly, a child who was born unwanted would suffer more in life than they would in death in the womb.
Original post by _gcx
Yes. Whether it is logically consistent, however, is arguable.
Well that is the main question as outlined in my post
Original post by TheTruthTeller
Notice: I am not vegan, but am pro-choice. I respect vegans and believe what they are saying is rational and just, yet I simply want to play devil's advocate here and see the responses.
If one is an "ethical vegan"- a vegan who has chosen to be vegan primarily for ethical reasons, such as stopping "unnecessary" animal suffering, is it then logically inconsistent for them to be "pro-choice?".
If a woman fell pregnant and simply decided she did not want the baby, surely the fetuses autonomy is being violated and it is unnecessarily being murdered. One can argue the female has the right to chose whether to raise the child or not which is true, yet a far less painful alternative would be to simply give up the child up for adoption or foster. The option of abortion is therefore clearly unnecessary and creates suffering and pain. Thus surely if you are an ethical vegan you must also be pro-life? How can you justify the murder of an unborn baby, yet cannot justify the consumption of an unfertilized chickens egg? (*)
There are exceptions to every rule. In this case I think most vegans would probably kill an animal to survive if NECESSARY on a stranded island for example. Similarly with abortion let's already state the most obvious exception of a woman being raped. Because her autonomy was violated I will assume everyone here (assuming we are all rational) accept abortion in such cases.
Thoughts?
If one is an "ethical vegan"- a vegan who has chosen to be vegan primarily for ethical reasons, such as stopping "unnecessary" animal suffering, is it then logically inconsistent for them to be "pro-choice?".
If a woman fell pregnant and simply decided she did not want the baby, surely the fetuses autonomy is being violated and it is unnecessarily being murdered. One can argue the female has the right to chose whether to raise the child or not which is true, yet a far less painful alternative would be to simply give up the child up for adoption or foster. The option of abortion is therefore clearly unnecessary and creates suffering and pain. Thus surely if you are an ethical vegan you must also be pro-life? How can you justify the murder of an unborn baby, yet cannot justify the consumption of an unfertilized chickens egg? (*)
There are exceptions to every rule. In this case I think most vegans would probably kill an animal to survive if NECESSARY on a stranded island for example. Similarly with abortion let's already state the most obvious exception of a woman being raped. Because her autonomy was violated I will assume everyone here (assuming we are all rational) accept abortion in such cases.
Thoughts?
Some individuals may justify the view saying that harvesting eggs causes pain to a being that is currently alive by our albeit arbitrary standards of life, whereas killing an unborn baby is killing a being which is "not yet alive yet". Different individuals have different opinions on when an unborn baby is either "human" or "alive", setting pretty arbitrary milestones to judge when an abortion can or can't take place. If it is done before this arbitrary milestone, one may say that the termination of a pregnancy in that manner should not be considered bringing pain to a conscious being. However, they may argue that due to the treatment in animals when eggs are being harvested/collected, the example that you listed could be considered bringing pain to a conscious being.
Abortion is still kind of a grey area in my book outside of forced pregnancy or medical emergencies, for numerous reasons.
Original post by TheTruthTeller
Notice: I am not vegan, but am pro-choice. I respect vegans and believe what they are saying is rational and just, yet I simply want to play devil's advocate here and see the responses.
If one is an "ethical vegan"- a vegan who has chosen to be vegan primarily for ethical reasons, such as stopping "unnecessary" animal suffering, is it then logically inconsistent for them to be "pro-choice?".
If a woman fell pregnant and simply decided she did not want the baby, surely the fetuses autonomy is being violated and it is unnecessarily being murdered. One can argue the female has the right to chose whether to raise the child or not which is true, yet a far less painful alternative would be to simply give up the child up for adoption or foster. The option of abortion is therefore clearly unnecessary and creates suffering and pain. Thus surely if you are an ethical vegan you must also be pro-life? How can you justify the murder of an unborn baby, yet cannot justify the consumption of an unfertilized chickens egg?
There are exceptions to every rule. In this case I think most vegans would probably kill an animal to survive if NECESSARY on a stranded island for example. Similarly with abortion let's already state the most obvious exception of a woman being raped. Because her autonomy was violated I will assume everyone here (assuming we are all rational) accept abortion in such cases.
Thoughts?
If one is an "ethical vegan"- a vegan who has chosen to be vegan primarily for ethical reasons, such as stopping "unnecessary" animal suffering, is it then logically inconsistent for them to be "pro-choice?".
If a woman fell pregnant and simply decided she did not want the baby, surely the fetuses autonomy is being violated and it is unnecessarily being murdered. One can argue the female has the right to chose whether to raise the child or not which is true, yet a far less painful alternative would be to simply give up the child up for adoption or foster. The option of abortion is therefore clearly unnecessary and creates suffering and pain. Thus surely if you are an ethical vegan you must also be pro-life? How can you justify the murder of an unborn baby, yet cannot justify the consumption of an unfertilized chickens egg?
There are exceptions to every rule. In this case I think most vegans would probably kill an animal to survive if NECESSARY on a stranded island for example. Similarly with abortion let's already state the most obvious exception of a woman being raped. Because her autonomy was violated I will assume everyone here (assuming we are all rational) accept abortion in such cases.
Thoughts?
Yes I think it's consistent. Killing animals to eat them is immoral because we lack a morally sufficient reason for doing so. No similar harm is done to us by refraining from causing harm to animals.
The reason it's wrong to eat eggs is because of the harm involved in producing the eggs- male chicks are killed, female chickens are severely harmed and subsequently killed etc. so that isn't analogous to the case against abortion.
There are circumstances where as a vegan it is permissible to eat meat, the same way there are circumstances where a pro-choice would be against abortion.
Ultimately though I think it depends how sophisticated you are in your defense of veganism or stance of abortion is, i.e. do you defend a particular moral theory or theory of minds etc. but I think the short answer if yes there is no obvious inconsistency in being a vegan and pro-choice.
Yes, it is possible to be both and to be consistent. It depends on the individual's reasons for being vegan and pro-choice.
With the example of the egg, the egg had to be made by a chicken. It isn't necessarily the action of eating the egg which is itself objectionable, but in order to eat an egg you have to retrieve it from a chicken, and by taking a chicken's egg the chicken can be seen to be being exploited.
If we're talking about an egg as normally sold in a supermarket, then the chicken who made that egg has had its entire life created and expended in the name of profit. The chicken was a slave, and complicity in their exploitation is what many vegans object to.
In the case of terminating a foetus, there isn't an analogous case of exploitation, so the way of thinking about these two topics may be different.
With the example of the egg, the egg had to be made by a chicken. It isn't necessarily the action of eating the egg which is itself objectionable, but in order to eat an egg you have to retrieve it from a chicken, and by taking a chicken's egg the chicken can be seen to be being exploited.
If we're talking about an egg as normally sold in a supermarket, then the chicken who made that egg has had its entire life created and expended in the name of profit. The chicken was a slave, and complicity in their exploitation is what many vegans object to.
In the case of terminating a foetus, there isn't an analogous case of exploitation, so the way of thinking about these two topics may be different.
"If a woman is considering an abortion, it's primarily because she feels like she would not be able to adequately look after the child".
Exceptions to the rule such as rape and incest are acceptable as I previously mention above. However, what if the mother simply did not want to care for the child out of free will and thus aborted it, creating unecessary suffering that could be mitigated if the child was simply put up for adoption? In the same way as the selfish mother, a meat eater would case unecessary suffering for animals in terms of mass slaughter due to their selfish "wants" not "needs". The woman does not "need" to abort the child as other options are available.
"I believe it's wrong to inflict suffering on that child who would either be brought up in a cycle of abuse, or put up for adoption/fostering, which would arguably limit the child's potential".
I agree with the first part concerning suffering on the child- who wouldn't? However "limiting the child's potential" is vague and not an argument. It is an appeal to emotion and does not carry any value in adding anything to your argument. I can counter it by listing several adopted or fostered children who have overreached their potential, destroying your point.
"You're just introducing a child into the world without its consent and subjecting it to a life (more likely than not) of poverty".
You cannot act on behalf of the child. When the child is of an adequate age (no longer a child) it can chose to carry on living or commit suicide. It is very arrogant to "assume" you know what the child would chose. However when you introduce other factors like poverty you are going off on a tangent. The question I pose "assumes" the mother has the means to look after the baby but simply does not want to. How would you feel concerning this- her right or the child's autonomy being violated?
How can you justify the murder of an unborn baby, yet cannot justify the consumption of an unfertilized chickens egg?
I'm not totally opposed to consuming eggs from pet chickens, as long as they receive adequate care
Interesting point, by definition you would technically no longer be vegan if you are fine with consuming free range eggs.
It's an unassailable fact that animals suffer in the meat and dairy industry. I agree. There is also strong evidence that unborn babies even prior to 20 weeks feel excruciating pain during an abortion proceduce which are horrific to watch. Search on youtube if you really want to witness one.
For meat, the animals are separated from their parents within hours of being born, and are killed when they're young.
For unborn babies they are not even given the ability to be born.
For dairy, cows are artificially inseminated and their lifespans are reduced by around 80% through this, and more often than not they're treated awfully by low paid farmers or workers and are butchered in inhumane ways.
Butchered inhumanely and unnecessarily also similar to abortions?
Similarly, a child who was born unwanted would suffer more in life than they would in death in the womb
Life is about suffering. We all suffer on a daily basis. Weak argument to end off with. We do not live in a society where suffering cannot exist. As long as the mother is able to provide for the baby and provide it with a stable home anything else such as when the child grows up cannot be discussed as it is only subject to speculation.
@blue2337 - sorry idk how to multiquote or even quote lol
Exceptions to the rule such as rape and incest are acceptable as I previously mention above. However, what if the mother simply did not want to care for the child out of free will and thus aborted it, creating unecessary suffering that could be mitigated if the child was simply put up for adoption? In the same way as the selfish mother, a meat eater would case unecessary suffering for animals in terms of mass slaughter due to their selfish "wants" not "needs". The woman does not "need" to abort the child as other options are available.
"I believe it's wrong to inflict suffering on that child who would either be brought up in a cycle of abuse, or put up for adoption/fostering, which would arguably limit the child's potential".
I agree with the first part concerning suffering on the child- who wouldn't? However "limiting the child's potential" is vague and not an argument. It is an appeal to emotion and does not carry any value in adding anything to your argument. I can counter it by listing several adopted or fostered children who have overreached their potential, destroying your point.
"You're just introducing a child into the world without its consent and subjecting it to a life (more likely than not) of poverty".
You cannot act on behalf of the child. When the child is of an adequate age (no longer a child) it can chose to carry on living or commit suicide. It is very arrogant to "assume" you know what the child would chose. However when you introduce other factors like poverty you are going off on a tangent. The question I pose "assumes" the mother has the means to look after the baby but simply does not want to. How would you feel concerning this- her right or the child's autonomy being violated?
How can you justify the murder of an unborn baby, yet cannot justify the consumption of an unfertilized chickens egg?
I'm not totally opposed to consuming eggs from pet chickens, as long as they receive adequate care
Interesting point, by definition you would technically no longer be vegan if you are fine with consuming free range eggs.
It's an unassailable fact that animals suffer in the meat and dairy industry. I agree. There is also strong evidence that unborn babies even prior to 20 weeks feel excruciating pain during an abortion proceduce which are horrific to watch. Search on youtube if you really want to witness one.
For meat, the animals are separated from their parents within hours of being born, and are killed when they're young.
For unborn babies they are not even given the ability to be born.
For dairy, cows are artificially inseminated and their lifespans are reduced by around 80% through this, and more often than not they're treated awfully by low paid farmers or workers and are butchered in inhumane ways.
Butchered inhumanely and unnecessarily also similar to abortions?
Similarly, a child who was born unwanted would suffer more in life than they would in death in the womb
Life is about suffering. We all suffer on a daily basis. Weak argument to end off with. We do not live in a society where suffering cannot exist. As long as the mother is able to provide for the baby and provide it with a stable home anything else such as when the child grows up cannot be discussed as it is only subject to speculation.
@blue2337 - sorry idk how to multiquote or even quote lol
Original post by _gcx
Some individuals may justify the view saying that harvesting eggs causes pain to a being that is currently alive by our albeit arbitrary standards of life, whereas killing an unborn baby is killing a being which is "not yet alive yet". Different individuals have different opinions on when an unborn baby is either "human" or "alive", setting pretty arbitrary milestones to judge when an abortion can or can't take place. If it is done before this arbitrary milestone, one may say that the termination of a pregnancy in that manner should not be considered bringing pain to a conscious being. However, they may argue that due to the treatment in animals when eggs are being harvested/collected, the example that you listed could be considered bringing pain to a conscious being.
Abortion is still kind of a grey area in my book outside of forced pregnancy or medical emergencies, for numerous reasons.
Abortion is still kind of a grey area in my book outside of forced pregnancy or medical emergencies, for numerous reasons.
There is evidence that unborn babies can face pain during abortion prior to 20 weeks. The essence is about unecessary suffering. The baby can be given up for adoption etc, yet the mother choses to have an abortion, similar to how a meat eater selfishly choses to consume meat
Original post by benandjerry
Yes I think it's consistent. Killing animals to eat them is immoral because we lack a morally sufficient reason for doing so. No similar harm is done to us by refraining from causing harm to animals.
The reason it's wrong to eat eggs is because of the harm involved in producing the eggs- male chicks are killed, female chickens are severely harmed and subsequently killed etc. so that isn't analogous to the case against abortion.
There are circumstances where as a vegan it is permissible to eat meat, the same way there are circumstances where a pro-choice would be against abortion.
Ultimately though I think it depends how sophisticated you are in your defense of veganism or stance of abortion is, i.e. do you defend a particular moral theory or theory of minds etc. but I think the short answer if yes there is no obvious inconsistency in being a vegan and pro-choice.
The reason it's wrong to eat eggs is because of the harm involved in producing the eggs- male chicks are killed, female chickens are severely harmed and subsequently killed etc. so that isn't analogous to the case against abortion.
There are circumstances where as a vegan it is permissible to eat meat, the same way there are circumstances where a pro-choice would be against abortion.
Ultimately though I think it depends how sophisticated you are in your defense of veganism or stance of abortion is, i.e. do you defend a particular moral theory or theory of minds etc. but I think the short answer if yes there is no obvious inconsistency in being a vegan and pro-choice.
Who exactly comes up with a morally sufficient reason? One could argue they consume meat because it keeps them alive? Is that morally sufficient? No, because they can stay alive without eating meat and thus mitigating suffering. In the same way a woman could put the unborn child up for adoption, mitigating the suffering that does not "need" to be caused.
What about free range eggs? Seems like a viable alternative to me.
"However, what if the mother simply did not want to care for the child out of free will and thus aborted it, creating unecessary suffering that could be mitigated if the child was simply put up for adoption? In the same way as the selfish mother, a meat eater would case unecessary suffering for animals in terms of mass slaughter due to their selfish "wants" not "needs". The woman does not "need" to abort the child as other options are available."
(BTW, there are 2 ns in unnecessary)
Adoption is a complex process and you're assuming that the child will actually get adopted, which isn't as easy as some prospective parents walking in, pointing at a baby and taking it home with them that day. There are thousands of children growing up in 'the system' which where babies born instead of being aborted; those children won't get the same advantages as others. I've literally just googled it and found: "According to a nationwide study of runaway youths, more than one-third had been in foster care in the year before they took to the streets. More than one out of five youths who arrive at a shelter come directly from a foster or group home, with 38 percent nationally saying they had been in foster care at some time during the previous year, the study found." I can't vouch for the validity of these numbers but, if true, they support my case. However, I don't think you can draw a parallel between a mother aborting a fetus and a meat-eater eating meat; consumption of meat is a societal norm with the majority of people doing it and often it isn't a conscious decision or one that people would particularly think about. In contrast, abortion is still a taboo in this country and, in order to go through with it, lots of consultation and planning is required, and therapy offered afterwards. It isn't a flippant decision but one which is painful and heartbreaking. The individual meat-eater isn't "to blame" for the suffering of the animals because they're mostly unaware of the issues surrounding these industries.
"However "limiting the child's potential" is vague and not an argument. It is an appeal to emotion and does not carry any value in adding anything to your argument. I can counter it by listing several adopted or fostered children who have overreached their potential, destroying your point."
Firstly, no offence, but you argue like a 13 year old. By listing fostered or adopted children you know who have gone on to do good things is purely anecdotal and doesn't show anything about overall trends. Because I didn't realise this was a full on debate, I didn't have any statistics to back up the points I was making, but fine.
- One such survey conducted in the Minneapolis area found that between 14 and 26 percent of homeless adults were former foster care children
- A subsequent survey of the long-term homeless in Minneapolis found that 39 percent had experienced foster care or institutional care as children
- A New York City survey found that between 25 and 50 percent of the young men in the homeless shelters were former foster care wards
- A 1991 federal study of former foster care wards found that one-fourth had been homeless, 40 percent were on public assistance and half were unemployed. Connecticut officials estimate 75 percent of youths in the state's criminal justice system were once in foster care
- According to a survey by the National Association of Social Workers, 20 percent of children living in runaway shelters come directly from foster care. Children placed in out-of-home care, regardless of the reason, are at higher risk of developing alcohol and drug problems. The survey also found that 80 percent of prisoners in Illinois spent time in foster care as children
I don't know how accurate or unbiased this data is but what it suggests is that there is a causal link between being "unwanted" by your birth parents and serious issues in the future. Sure you might know of many examples of individuals who 'beat the system' and came out better for it, but in order to see the larger patterns you have to examine bigger sample sizes other than your mates.
"You cannot act on behalf of the child. When the child is of an adequate age (no longer a child) it can chose to carry on living or commit suicide. It is very arrogant to "assume" you know what the child would chose. However when you introduce other factors like poverty you are going off on a tangent. The question I pose "assumes" the mother has the means to look after the baby but simply does not want to?"
Okay, so what age becomes the age where the kid can determine whether they die or not? When are they a "child"? Where's that line drawn, and who's drawing it? And the fundamental distinction to me is that, when the fetus is still in the womb, fully reliant on the mother, it's not a child. A child is "a young human below the age of puberty", but at an age below 24 weeks, the fetus doesn't possess any of the capacities which make it "human" other than the potential to become a human, so the abortion cuts off the potential but that can't be equated to murder.
Also, don't base a debate on an assumption. If a mother doesn't want to, there's a reason for that and that has to be respected, and arguably her 'not wanting to' is a subset of not having the means to look after it.
"Interesting point, by definition you would technically no longer be vegan if you are fine with consuming free range eggs."
Oh, to clarify, I would never eat any kind of animal product, but when people attempt veganism or vegetarianism I'd aim to promote the consumption of free range eggs. But any way you look at eating eggs or meat, the animal is still being killed or suffering because they're being prevented from living their natural lives, eating what they would eat, and we're effectively tampering with them for our own gain which is selfish. But it's a lesser evil.
"There is also strong evidence that unborn babies even prior to 20 weeks feel excruciating pain during an abortion proceduce which are horrific to watch."
There's also strong evidence to suggest that they don't. That's how science works. Also I'm a bit concerned if you spend your free time watching abortions, I think you need to talk to someone.
"For unborn babies they are not even given the ability to be born."
Which, again, is a difference between veganism and pro-choice. But that's the point, it's the whole 'given the ability' thing. The ''''baby'''' doesn't possess their own autonomy because they aren't conscious or able to survive post-partum prior to 20 weeks, which means that the central autonomy belongs to the mother.
"Butchered inhumanely and unnecessarily also similar to abortions?"
In many places, Utah for instance, the fetus is injected with painkillers just in case it does feel pain. I didn't know abortions happened by tossing a bucket of extracted fetuses into a meat grinder and then picking out the toenails from the paste which exits the grinder?
"Life is about suffering. We all suffer on a daily basis. Weak argument to end off with. We do not live in a society where suffering cannot exist. As long as the mother is able to provide for the baby and provide it with a stable home anything else such as when the child grows up cannot be discussed as it is only subject to speculation."
Calm down Kid Schopenhauer. A mother might have the financial means to care for a kid but if she doesn't want it, it's not going to get a stable home. How do you define "provide for the baby"? And how are you delimiting the idea of "unnecessary" or "necessary"? I mean you're dealing a lot in speculation, in that your argument seems to rest on the idea that the reason for abortion is deemed (by you) to be trivial and if the mother simply 'had the baby' then the reason she was considering abortion would magically disappear. It's a lot more complex than that.
Situation here: my friend got pregnant when she had just turned 18, to a guy who was 16. She was going off to Cambridge that year, and planned to break up with her boyfriend. She aborted the baby without telling him, because he believed that abortion was wrong and wanted to raise any potential child with her. He was also emotionally manipulative and they weren't happy together.
Her reason for aborting the baby was that: 1. She would be a single mother. 2. She would probably have a difficult relationship with her child's father. 3. Her parents would kick her out the house. 4. She'd have to pull out of education.
Would you call those trivial reasons, or "unnecessary" reasons? She was 18, which means she was pretty safe as a legal adult to care for the child without her parents' intervention. Being a single mother is perfectly achievable; I have lots of friends who come from single parent families. She had a large inheritance and would have been able to provide economically for the child for a while. She was an adult so pulling out of education and sacrificing her dreams shouldn't matter.
But no. It was her choice to abort the baby because she had higher aspirations and didn't want to have to give it up to care for an unwanted baby. She could have put it up for adoption, but the 9 months pregnancy would have coincided with her A Levels. She couldn't have hidden it from her parents and would have been kicked out, and her boyfriend would notice and might have manipulated her into keeping it. When it comes down to it, she had the means to keep the baby and raise it, but she didn't want to, and so she shouldn't have to.
(BTW, there are 2 ns in unnecessary)
Adoption is a complex process and you're assuming that the child will actually get adopted, which isn't as easy as some prospective parents walking in, pointing at a baby and taking it home with them that day. There are thousands of children growing up in 'the system' which where babies born instead of being aborted; those children won't get the same advantages as others. I've literally just googled it and found: "According to a nationwide study of runaway youths, more than one-third had been in foster care in the year before they took to the streets. More than one out of five youths who arrive at a shelter come directly from a foster or group home, with 38 percent nationally saying they had been in foster care at some time during the previous year, the study found." I can't vouch for the validity of these numbers but, if true, they support my case. However, I don't think you can draw a parallel between a mother aborting a fetus and a meat-eater eating meat; consumption of meat is a societal norm with the majority of people doing it and often it isn't a conscious decision or one that people would particularly think about. In contrast, abortion is still a taboo in this country and, in order to go through with it, lots of consultation and planning is required, and therapy offered afterwards. It isn't a flippant decision but one which is painful and heartbreaking. The individual meat-eater isn't "to blame" for the suffering of the animals because they're mostly unaware of the issues surrounding these industries.
"However "limiting the child's potential" is vague and not an argument. It is an appeal to emotion and does not carry any value in adding anything to your argument. I can counter it by listing several adopted or fostered children who have overreached their potential, destroying your point."
Firstly, no offence, but you argue like a 13 year old. By listing fostered or adopted children you know who have gone on to do good things is purely anecdotal and doesn't show anything about overall trends. Because I didn't realise this was a full on debate, I didn't have any statistics to back up the points I was making, but fine.
- One such survey conducted in the Minneapolis area found that between 14 and 26 percent of homeless adults were former foster care children
- A subsequent survey of the long-term homeless in Minneapolis found that 39 percent had experienced foster care or institutional care as children
- A New York City survey found that between 25 and 50 percent of the young men in the homeless shelters were former foster care wards
- A 1991 federal study of former foster care wards found that one-fourth had been homeless, 40 percent were on public assistance and half were unemployed. Connecticut officials estimate 75 percent of youths in the state's criminal justice system were once in foster care
- According to a survey by the National Association of Social Workers, 20 percent of children living in runaway shelters come directly from foster care. Children placed in out-of-home care, regardless of the reason, are at higher risk of developing alcohol and drug problems. The survey also found that 80 percent of prisoners in Illinois spent time in foster care as children
I don't know how accurate or unbiased this data is but what it suggests is that there is a causal link between being "unwanted" by your birth parents and serious issues in the future. Sure you might know of many examples of individuals who 'beat the system' and came out better for it, but in order to see the larger patterns you have to examine bigger sample sizes other than your mates.
"You cannot act on behalf of the child. When the child is of an adequate age (no longer a child) it can chose to carry on living or commit suicide. It is very arrogant to "assume" you know what the child would chose. However when you introduce other factors like poverty you are going off on a tangent. The question I pose "assumes" the mother has the means to look after the baby but simply does not want to?"
Okay, so what age becomes the age where the kid can determine whether they die or not? When are they a "child"? Where's that line drawn, and who's drawing it? And the fundamental distinction to me is that, when the fetus is still in the womb, fully reliant on the mother, it's not a child. A child is "a young human below the age of puberty", but at an age below 24 weeks, the fetus doesn't possess any of the capacities which make it "human" other than the potential to become a human, so the abortion cuts off the potential but that can't be equated to murder.
Also, don't base a debate on an assumption. If a mother doesn't want to, there's a reason for that and that has to be respected, and arguably her 'not wanting to' is a subset of not having the means to look after it.
"Interesting point, by definition you would technically no longer be vegan if you are fine with consuming free range eggs."
Oh, to clarify, I would never eat any kind of animal product, but when people attempt veganism or vegetarianism I'd aim to promote the consumption of free range eggs. But any way you look at eating eggs or meat, the animal is still being killed or suffering because they're being prevented from living their natural lives, eating what they would eat, and we're effectively tampering with them for our own gain which is selfish. But it's a lesser evil.
"There is also strong evidence that unborn babies even prior to 20 weeks feel excruciating pain during an abortion proceduce which are horrific to watch."
There's also strong evidence to suggest that they don't. That's how science works. Also I'm a bit concerned if you spend your free time watching abortions, I think you need to talk to someone.
"For unborn babies they are not even given the ability to be born."
Which, again, is a difference between veganism and pro-choice. But that's the point, it's the whole 'given the ability' thing. The ''''baby'''' doesn't possess their own autonomy because they aren't conscious or able to survive post-partum prior to 20 weeks, which means that the central autonomy belongs to the mother.
"Butchered inhumanely and unnecessarily also similar to abortions?"
In many places, Utah for instance, the fetus is injected with painkillers just in case it does feel pain. I didn't know abortions happened by tossing a bucket of extracted fetuses into a meat grinder and then picking out the toenails from the paste which exits the grinder?
"Life is about suffering. We all suffer on a daily basis. Weak argument to end off with. We do not live in a society where suffering cannot exist. As long as the mother is able to provide for the baby and provide it with a stable home anything else such as when the child grows up cannot be discussed as it is only subject to speculation."
Calm down Kid Schopenhauer. A mother might have the financial means to care for a kid but if she doesn't want it, it's not going to get a stable home. How do you define "provide for the baby"? And how are you delimiting the idea of "unnecessary" or "necessary"? I mean you're dealing a lot in speculation, in that your argument seems to rest on the idea that the reason for abortion is deemed (by you) to be trivial and if the mother simply 'had the baby' then the reason she was considering abortion would magically disappear. It's a lot more complex than that.
Situation here: my friend got pregnant when she had just turned 18, to a guy who was 16. She was going off to Cambridge that year, and planned to break up with her boyfriend. She aborted the baby without telling him, because he believed that abortion was wrong and wanted to raise any potential child with her. He was also emotionally manipulative and they weren't happy together.
Her reason for aborting the baby was that: 1. She would be a single mother. 2. She would probably have a difficult relationship with her child's father. 3. Her parents would kick her out the house. 4. She'd have to pull out of education.
Would you call those trivial reasons, or "unnecessary" reasons? She was 18, which means she was pretty safe as a legal adult to care for the child without her parents' intervention. Being a single mother is perfectly achievable; I have lots of friends who come from single parent families. She had a large inheritance and would have been able to provide economically for the child for a while. She was an adult so pulling out of education and sacrificing her dreams shouldn't matter.
But no. It was her choice to abort the baby because she had higher aspirations and didn't want to have to give it up to care for an unwanted baby. She could have put it up for adoption, but the 9 months pregnancy would have coincided with her A Levels. She couldn't have hidden it from her parents and would have been kicked out, and her boyfriend would notice and might have manipulated her into keeping it. When it comes down to it, she had the means to keep the baby and raise it, but she didn't want to, and so she shouldn't have to.
It does seem that most vegan hipster wannabes jump on the pro-choice bandwagon too. In this day and age, people value animal life more than human life.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by TheTruthTeller
Who exactly comes up with a morally sufficient reason? One could argue they consume meat because it keeps them alive? Is that morally sufficient? No, because they can stay alive without eating meat and thus mitigating suffering. In the same way a woman could put the unborn child up for adoption, mitigating the suffering that does not "need" to be caused.
What about free range eggs? Seems like a viable alternative to me.
What about free range eggs? Seems like a viable alternative to me.
I think the point is that a fetus at least up to a certain point is not conscious so they are not obviously harmed in the same way as animals. I don't have any informed views about abortion but I don't think the line of argument you're taking is especially effective. I would read something like this to make see what the contemporary debate on abortion is like : http://www.iep.utm.edu/abortion/
And No free range is wrong because male chicks are still killed as they are useless and female chickens are killed once they no longer produce eggs
(edited 7 years ago)
Vegans and pro-choicers are both off their rockers, I tell you.
You see, life begins at conception, so abortion is murder, to be frank. So "pro-choice vegans" support the killing of unborn babies but cry their bleeding hearts out when milk is taken from a cow. Unbelievable hypocracy.
You see, life begins at conception, so abortion is murder, to be frank. So "pro-choice vegans" support the killing of unborn babies but cry their bleeding hearts out when milk is taken from a cow. Unbelievable hypocracy.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Len Goodman
Vegans and pro-choicers are both off their rockers, I tell you.
You see, life begins at contraception, so abortion is murder, to be frank. So "pro-choice vegans" support the killing of unborn babies but cry their bleeding hearts out when milk is taken from a cow. Unbelievable hypocracy.
You see, life begins at contraception, so abortion is murder, to be frank. So "pro-choice vegans" support the killing of unborn babies but cry their bleeding hearts out when milk is taken from a cow. Unbelievable hypocracy.
you mean conception, but you're bang on right
Original post by absoul
you mean conception, but you're bang on right
Whoopsie, little typo there. You see, old Len isn't getting any younger and loses his marbles occasionally. Nothing you young millennials have to worry about for some time though!
Original post by Len Goodman
Whoopsie, little typo there. You see, old Len isn't getting any younger and loses his marbles occasionally. Nothing you young millennials have to worry about for some time though!
bloody hell Len
Original post by Len Goodman
Vegans and pro-choicers are both off their rockers, I tell you.
You see, life begins at conception, so abortion is murder, to be frank. So "pro-choice vegans" support the killing of unborn babies but cry their bleeding hearts out when milk is taken from a cow. Unbelievable hypocracy.
You see, life begins at conception, so abortion is murder, to be frank. So "pro-choice vegans" support the killing of unborn babies but cry their bleeding hearts out when milk is taken from a cow. Unbelievable hypocracy.
Well it would be hypocrisy if vegans claimed that being alive is the criterion for moral considerability which obviously they do not. There is an obvious way that taking milk from a cow, a process which entails huge amounts of suffering on the cow (you can look up things that are necessary to make this as inexpensive as possible), is harmful to the cow in a way that isn't the case when aborting a feutus before it is conscious
Original post by TheTruthTeller
Notice: I am not vegan, but am pro-choice. I respect vegans and believe what they are saying is rational and just, yet I simply want to play devil's advocate here and see the responses.
If one is an "ethical vegan"- a vegan who has chosen to be vegan primarily for ethical reasons, such as stopping "unnecessary" animal suffering, is it then logically inconsistent for them to be "pro-choice?".
If a woman fell pregnant and simply decided she did not want the baby, surely the fetuses autonomy is being violated and it is unnecessarily being murdered. One can argue the female has the right to chose whether to raise the child or not which is true, yet a far less painful alternative would be to simply give up the child up for adoption or foster. The option of abortion is therefore clearly unnecessary and creates suffering and pain. Thus surely if you are an ethical vegan you must also be pro-life? How can you justify the murder of an unborn baby, yet cannot justify the consumption of an unfertilized chickens egg?
There are exceptions to every rule. In this case I think most vegans would probably kill an animal to survive if NECESSARY on a stranded island for example. Similarly with abortion let's already state the most obvious exception of a woman being raped. Because her autonomy was violated I will assume everyone here (assuming we are all rational) accept abortion in such cases.
Thoughts?
If one is an "ethical vegan"- a vegan who has chosen to be vegan primarily for ethical reasons, such as stopping "unnecessary" animal suffering, is it then logically inconsistent for them to be "pro-choice?".
If a woman fell pregnant and simply decided she did not want the baby, surely the fetuses autonomy is being violated and it is unnecessarily being murdered. One can argue the female has the right to chose whether to raise the child or not which is true, yet a far less painful alternative would be to simply give up the child up for adoption or foster. The option of abortion is therefore clearly unnecessary and creates suffering and pain. Thus surely if you are an ethical vegan you must also be pro-life? How can you justify the murder of an unborn baby, yet cannot justify the consumption of an unfertilized chickens egg?
There are exceptions to every rule. In this case I think most vegans would probably kill an animal to survive if NECESSARY on a stranded island for example. Similarly with abortion let's already state the most obvious exception of a woman being raped. Because her autonomy was violated I will assume everyone here (assuming we are all rational) accept abortion in such cases.
Thoughts?
you wont get a straight answer. most vegans today seem to base their diet on health rather morals. thus majority of your response will be from those who find no moral qualm but try to justify their position.
majority responses are probably in regards to pain and suffering. Or the question of alive. some how what qualifies or measures one will not be same for the other in which a just reasoning occurs
Posted from TSR Mobile
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Is it okay for a vegan to work for a supermarket?
- University - recipe suggestions for students
- going vegan ?
- Birthday cake and vegan friend dilemma
- Who else is vegan on here?
- Do you think universities should ban meat from their menus?
- if i will only date a vegetarian/vegan will i be unlikely to find a gf
- any other vegans here?
- Going to uni and living at home
- NTU or MMU or UCA Epsom
- How did you know what uni was for you
- Kallisto's Sunday Question: Vegetables
- Biomed Engineering Unis 2023: Leeds vs Sheffield vs Surrey vs Cardiff
- Alevel options
- going insane
- Counselling Psychology Doctorate North East
- how to become a government minister?
- Cambridge college help medicine
- my older sister thinks I am copying her. when im not.
- UCL History Politics and Economics vs LSE International History
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
