Avatar image for jagernutt
#601 Edited by jagernutt (16343 posts) - - Show Bio

@lil_remains said:
@jagernutt said:
@lil_remains said:

Lol what? Thats a terrible terrible idea.

”You’re poor so you can’t vote” what type of shit is that?

If you aren't mentally capable of even supporting yourself then how can you mentally fit to make a good mental decision about the direction of the country itself?

Not to mention this system would be rigged against minorities.

I don't believe that. I live in Atlanta. Most job's I've had are dominated by African Americans and not white's. This includes almost every working field from the Hotel industry to food service to construction,retail, security,police etc.

If you aren't mentally capable of even supporting yourself then how can you mentally fit to make a good mental decision about the direction of the country itself?

1. Because it's their right as a citizen.

The point went right over your head.

2. They are still a demographic, and need representation for their needs

They obviously are represented.

3. It has nothing to do with 'mentally supporting themselves'. There's far more to this than just 'mental support'. Poverty is not that simple.

Then enjoy the decline.

I don't believe that. I live in Atlanta. Most job's I've had are dominated by African Americans and not white's. This includes almost every working field from the Hotel industry to food service to construction,retail, security,police etc.

Anecdote, fact is, the groups with the most under the poverty line, are minorities, this system would be rigged so they can't get the representation they need, and are forced to get the representation given by those who don't understand their situation, most likely plunging them deeper into poverty. And if its the "main breadwinner" of every household, that is already stacked against women. Terrible, terrible idea..

Yeah. Let's see how that logic work's out for everybody living in the country.

Avatar image for jagernutt
#602 Edited by jagernutt (16343 posts) - - Show Bio

@purpleperson said:

@i_like_swords

The woman isn't "being forced" to do anything. She by her own actions made herself pregnant, and is then assuming the position of the aggressor by killing her unborn child. The unborn child did not conceive itself. You are removing agency from grown women by treating them like innocent victims when, in 99% of abortion cases, the woman just got herself pregnant stupidly and wanted an easy way out.

@decaf_wizard

My big issue with feminism other such groups that push these sorts of ideas (such as up to third term easy access abortion) want women treated like children who can't logically make their own decisions or be responsible for their actions so need to be given special treatment

I don't deny that in the majority of cases that an unwanted pregnancy occurs the woman (and the man for that matter) has behaved in an irresponsible manner, I just don't really see why making them go through a 9 month pregnancy to birth a child that they don't want is really a solution to the problem. Two people that have demonstrated irresponsibility looking after a child they don't want is hardly the perfect arrangement for the parents or the kid. One might say "it's better for the kid than to be dead" and this is probably true in a sense, but until the fetus has developed some kind of sentience, it doesn't have perspective worth considering in my opinion because it doesn't even have a perspective at all.

Women are obviously responsible for their actions and may have made a stupid mistake, but they've not committed a crime and I don't see why they should be made to endure the consequences of that mistake for the rest of their life. It's not about giving women special treatment either, it's an exclusively female issue. If men could get pregnant then I would be saying the same thing.

@jagernutt

My take on the voting rights should be 1 vote per household and only the bread winner of said household. Also no one living off of government programs should vote. There just not smart enough.

There are certainly many stupid people in the world and I can see an argument as to why one might want to restrict voting rights. However, your solution is inadequate:

  • Why should it be up to the bread winner? Other people in the house may be making valuable contributions to the world (raising kids for example) and may be more politically inclined or educated than the bread winner.
  • As a quantifiable/documented litmus test for competency. As well it would make counting votes far easier.
  • This is going to lead to men dominating the electorate. Why should we? Women are no less intelligent on average (and actually comprise fewer morons based on IQ) and I don't see why the mere fact that they are likely to be earning less money makes their political opinions any less relevant.
  • I don't care about gender representation at the voting polls one way or the other. There has to be a competency test that can't be faked.
  • There are plenty of intelligent people living off government benefits. Some morons too of course, but plenty of people with at least average intelligence.
  • Im not talking about food stamps. I'm talking about paying your bills from a government check as your primary source of income.

Avatar image for spareheadone
#603 Posted by SpareHeadOne (6097 posts) - - Show Bio

I often wish I was aborted

Avatar image for lil_remains
#604 Posted by Lil_Remains (1693 posts) - - Show Bio

I often wish I was aborted

Looking at the stupid responses in this thread, I'm feeling the same

Avatar image for lil_remains
#605 Edited by Lil_Remains (1693 posts) - - Show Bio

@i_like_swords said:
@lil_remains said:

This has nothing to do with "women being irresponsible" that's a shitty strawman. This is based in actual abortion statistics. 45 million abortions in the last 48 years.

How do women get pregnant?

Alien queen?

Also, I forgot to address this before, fetuses are not being killed. You cannot kill what is not living.

Avatar image for deactivated-5b9a7c57d0ad3
#606 Posted by deactivated-5b9a7c57d0ad3 (139 posts) - - Show Bio

@i_like_swords said:
@lil_remains said:

This has nothing to do with "women being irresponsible" that's a shitty strawman. This is based in actual abortion statistics. 45 million abortions in the last 48 years.

How do women get pregnant?

Alien queen?

Also, I forgot to address this before, fetuses are not being killed. You cannot kill what is not living.

Wait now! What? Fetuses aren't living?

Avatar image for lil_remains
#607 Posted by Lil_Remains (1693 posts) - - Show Bio

@lil_remains said:
@i_like_swords said:
@lil_remains said:

This has nothing to do with "women being irresponsible" that's a shitty strawman. This is based in actual abortion statistics. 45 million abortions in the last 48 years.

How do women get pregnant?

Alien queen?

Also, I forgot to address this before, fetuses are not being killed. You cannot kill what is not living.

Wait now! What? Fetuses aren't living?

No. They have the potential to be living beings, however they are not yet. They do not fit the 7 characteristics of life, and as a result are not living.

Avatar image for deactivated-5b9a7c57d0ad3
#608 Posted by deactivated-5b9a7c57d0ad3 (139 posts) - - Show Bio

@idodoodieduties said:
@lil_remains said:
@i_like_swords said:
@lil_remains said:

This has nothing to do with "women being irresponsible" that's a shitty strawman. This is based in actual abortion statistics. 45 million abortions in the last 48 years.

How do women get pregnant?

Alien queen?

Also, I forgot to address this before, fetuses are not being killed. You cannot kill what is not living.

Wait now! What? Fetuses aren't living?

No. They have the potential to be living beings, however they are not yet. They do not fit the 7 characteristics of life, and as a result are not living.

Ah! So who decides what characteristics equate to life?

Avatar image for samb94
#609 Posted by SAMB94 (35 posts) - - Show Bio

I think abortion is killing babies really. But I’m still pro choice because honestly most women want it legal and that’s enough for me. Abortion to me is just a humane way of ending a life. Certainly beats a coat hanger or other methods of ending a pregnancy (which women will do if it’s illegal anyways). Abortion can actually be positive for society but it’s hard to feel good about it. At the end of the day society just needs to be realistic about what will happen anyways in cases where women don’t want the baby.

Avatar image for lil_remains
#610 Posted by Lil_Remains (1693 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for decaf_wizard
#611 Posted by decaf_wizard (16936 posts) - - Show Bio

@alphaq said:
@decaf_wizard said:

Pro choice, but only for the first 8 weeks. Anything past that should be heavily illegal and punishable by jail time outside heavy circumstance, and no consequence abortion shouldn't exist

Where do you get the first 8 weeks from mate? My vague ballpark was around 10 to 11 weeks because that's where I heard brainwaves start.

From what I remember around that point is when nerves start to become decently developed, although dont quote me on that.

@i_like_swords

The woman isn't "being forced" to do anything. She by her own actions made herself pregnant, and is then assuming the position of the aggressor by killing her unborn child. The unborn child did not conceive itself. You are removing agency from grown women by treating them like innocent victims when, in 99% of abortion cases, the woman just got herself pregnant stupidly and wanted an easy way out.

@decaf_wizard

My big issue with feminism other such groups that push these sorts of ideas (such as up to third term easy access abortion) want women treated like children who can't logically make their own decisions or be responsible for their actions so need to be given special treatment

I don't deny that in the majority of cases that an unwanted pregnancy occurs the woman (and the man for that matter) has behaved in an irresponsible manner, I just don't really see why making them go through a 9 month pregnancy to birth a child that they don't want is really a solution to the problem. Two people that have demonstrated irresponsibility looking after a child they don't want is hardly the perfect arrangement for the parents or the kid. One might say "it's better for the kid than to be dead" and this is probably true in a sense, but until the fetus has developed some kind of sentience, it doesn't have perspective worth considering in my opinion because it doesn't even have a perspective at all.

So basically, if its not sentient its moral to kill it? So would you also condemn the killing of thousands of trees per year for no discernable reason when it could otherwise be avoided?

Women are obviously responsible for their actions and may have made a stupid mistake, but they've not committed a crime and I don't see why they should be made to endure the consequences of that mistake for the rest of their life. It's not about giving women special treatment either, it's an exclusively female issue. If men could get pregnant then I would be saying the same thing.

Its called give up the kid. And like holy hell how entitled do you think they should be, they are committing an action that they full well know can result in the conception of a child, going lackluster on the protection or ignoring it all together, and then shouldn't be saddled with a burden they can legally give up in nine months?

Also lets be honest, most women only want consequence free abortion to exist because a massive amount of women want a safety net for sleeping around constantly. Literally every woman I know well enough to ask, of my own age (early to mid 20's), thats in a committed long term relationship said they would keep a kid from their partner even if it wasn't planned.

Avatar image for decaf_wizard
#612 Edited by decaf_wizard (16936 posts) - - Show Bio

@i_like_swords said:
@amcu said:

I don't think having a baby is always fun or nice. Infact I don't really have a positive viewpoint on the subject. If I where a woman I would do everything I could to insure that I never had a child.

And that is why lots of western women today are miserable and have no purpose in life. They're not doing the one thing that gives their lives real meaning.

Or waiting too late and realizing how badly they dicked up

Avatar image for decaf_wizard
#613 Posted by decaf_wizard (16936 posts) - - Show Bio

@lil_remains said:

This has nothing to do with "women being irresponsible" that's a shitty strawman. This is based in actual abortion statistics. 45 million abortions in the last 48 years.

How do women get pregnant?

They magically appear in women after men use their special patriarchy beam at them? I though everybody knew this

Avatar image for baph
#614 Posted by baph (1705 posts) - - Show Bio

@lil_remains said:

This has nothing to do with "women being irresponsible" that's a shitty strawman. This is based in actual abortion statistics. 45 million abortions in the last 48 years.

How do women get pregnant?

Sausage inside vagina

Avatar image for jagernutt
#615 Posted by jagernutt (16343 posts) - - Show Bio

@i_like_swords said:
@amcu said:

I don't think having a baby is always fun or nice. Infact I don't really have a positive viewpoint on the subject. If I where a woman I would do everything I could to insure that I never had a child.

And that is why lots of western women today are miserable and have no purpose in life. They're not doing the one thing that gives their lives real meaning.

Or waiting too late and realizing how badly they dicked up

100%

Avatar image for i_like_swords
#616 Posted by i_like_swords (26203 posts) - - Show Bio

@i_like_swords said:
@lil_remains said:

This has nothing to do with "women being irresponsible" that's a shitty strawman. This is based in actual abortion statistics. 45 million abortions in the last 48 years.

How do women get pregnant?

Alien queen?

Also, I forgot to address this before, fetuses are not being killed. You cannot kill what is not living.

If you cannot kill what is not living then why do you care if we just start killing every single person in a coma on life support? And don't use external reasoning like "their families care" - why is it bad intrinsically to kill them?

Online
Avatar image for purpleperson
#617 Posted by PurplePerson (907 posts) - - Show Bio

@decaf_wizard: I don’t value the life of a tree for it’s own sake. I believe in conservation of habitats and biodiversity for many reasons, but I don’t consider them to have moral value.

Avatar image for spareheadone
#618 Posted by SpareHeadOne (6097 posts) - - Show Bio

The dead don't care that they are dead

The living are the ones that care

But if the living don't care and the dead don't care...

...then who cares?

Avatar image for kairan1979
#619 Posted by Kairan1979 (26904 posts) - - Show Bio

The choice is between abortion and abandoned children (plus the women dying because they are forced to look for illegal doctors for abortion).

Avatar image for tronmest35
#620 Posted by Tronmest35 (98 posts) - - Show Bio

I am against it unless the mother is seriously in danger or it is a rape victim. Besides legalized abortions might lead to a massive increase in pregnancies. I just feel horrified by women who want to get rid of what they call a burden.

Avatar image for lil_remains
#621 Posted by Lil_Remains (1693 posts) - - Show Bio

@i_like_swords: Because people in comas and on life support are still alive. The hell?

Fetuses are not living things until early/mid second trimester IIRC.

Avatar image for i_like_swords
#622 Posted by i_like_swords (26203 posts) - - Show Bio

@i_like_swords: Because people in comas and on life support are still alive. The hell?

Fetuses are not living things until early/mid second trimester IIRC.

Tell me what counts as "living."

Online
Avatar image for lil_remains
#623 Posted by Lil_Remains (1693 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for i_like_swords
#624 Posted by i_like_swords (26203 posts) - - Show Bio

@lil_remains: So this?

https://www.ck12.org/biology/Characteristics-of-Life/lesson/Characteristics-of-Life-Advanced-BIO-ADV/

  • responsiveness to the environment;
  • growth and change;
  • ability to reproduce;
  • have a metabolism and breathe;
  • maintain homeostasis;
  • being made of cells; and
  • passing traits onto offspring.

So let's take a newborn baby:

Responsive to the environment, check.

Grow and change, check.

Ability to reproduce, nope! Okay, killing babies is fine.

You sure this is a great argument? What if I only have 6 of these traits? Can you kill me now?

Online
Avatar image for decaf_wizard
#625 Edited by decaf_wizard (16936 posts) - - Show Bio

@i_like_swords: Actually bit of a nitpick, but those seven characteristics do apply to a unborn child. It refers to the ability of the living thing to do that somewhere in its existence. Technically a six year old can't reproduce either, but they have the organs to do so, the body just hasn't chosen to activate them yet. A fetus is just the same, it has the means to do so somewhere down the road. For example materials from fetus' are used in in-vetro fertilization

Not to mention those rules aren't concrete by any means and acting like they are is silly. Some living things may lack one of those capabilities but still be considered alive, and some things with many of those capabilities are not considered living

Avatar image for i_like_swords
#626 Posted by i_like_swords (26203 posts) - - Show Bio

@i_like_swords: Actually bit of a nitpick, but those seven characteristics do apply to a unborn child. It refers to the ability of the living thing to do that somewhere in its existence. Technically a six year old can't reproduce either, but they have the organs to do so, the body just hasn't chosen to activate them yet. A fetus is just the same, it has the means to do so somewhere down the road

Not to mention those rules aren't concrete by any means and acting like they are is silly. Some living things may lack one of those capabilities but still be considered alive, and some things with many of those capabilities are not considered living

Right. That's where I was going with this. A fetus potentially meets all of these arbitrary requirements if you just leave it alone for a few months.

Online
Avatar image for decaf_wizard
#627 Edited by decaf_wizard (16936 posts) - - Show Bio

@i_like_swords said:
@decaf_wizard said:

@i_like_swords: Actually bit of a nitpick, but those seven characteristics do apply to a unborn child. It refers to the ability of the living thing to do that somewhere in its existence. Technically a six year old can't reproduce either, but they have the organs to do so, the body just hasn't chosen to activate them yet. A fetus is just the same, it has the means to do so somewhere down the road

Not to mention those rules aren't concrete by any means and acting like they are is silly. Some living things may lack one of those capabilities but still be considered alive, and some things with many of those capabilities are not considered living

Right. That's where I was going with this. A fetus potentially meets all of these arbitrary requirements if you just leave it alone for a few months.

As for maintaining homeostasis, several adult, virile, living things rely on other living things to do that for them at least partially exactly like a fetus would. So that one is out too

Avatar image for lil_remains
#628 Posted by Lil_Remains (1693 posts) - - Show Bio

@i_like_swords: Lol, what’s up with these flimsy ass points? Can you try a little harder?

Avatar image for i_like_swords
#629 Posted by i_like_swords (26203 posts) - - Show Bio

@i_like_swords: Lol, what’s up with these flimsy ass points? Can you try a little harder?

Answer the question. You're the one who said those 7 rules are super important.

Online
Avatar image for lil_remains
#630 Edited by Lil_Remains (1693 posts) - - Show Bio

@i_like_swords: Babies do have the ability to reproduce, it has not been fully developed. They will continue to develop this, without being parasitic to another human.

Again, between the strawmen and points like this, this is an odd debate.

Avatar image for i_like_swords
#631 Posted by i_like_swords (26203 posts) - - Show Bio

@lil_remains:

Fetus' do have the ability to reproduce, it has not been fully developed.

I agree.

Babies will continue to develop this, without being parasitic to another human.

Of course they will be parasitic. They need to be fed milk and nurtured. If you leave a baby alone it will starve to death.

Online
Avatar image for lil_remains
#632 Posted by Lil_Remains (1693 posts) - - Show Bio

@i_like_swords: Babies will develop the ability to reproduce *without* being parasites. I can care for a baby. You can. Hell even Decaf could probably manage.

However fetuses are biologically dependent on women until a certain stage of maturity. Until then (early to mid second trimester) they are not living.

Also, it’s a lil pathetic to change the quotes in a debate on a serious debate like this.

Avatar image for i_like_swords
#633 Posted by i_like_swords (26203 posts) - - Show Bio

@lil_remains:

Babies will develop the ability to reproduce *without* being parasites. I can care for a baby. You can. Hell even Decaf could probably manage.

A parasite is something that takes without giving anything in return. Babies take without giving anything in return. Actually try explaining why this is different from what a fetus does.

However fetuses are biologically dependent on women until a certain stage of maturity. Until then (early to mid second trimester) they are not living.

What are you talking about, dude? When during the course of the entire 9 months is a baby not dependent on the mother? And why does the fetus suddenly go from not alive to alive during the second trimester? It's just as dependent on the mother before that point as it is after that point. And it is just as dependent on the mother for care after being born. Babies do not feed themselves.

Online
Avatar image for lil_remains
#634 Posted by Lil_Remains (1693 posts) - - Show Bio

@i_like_swords: It’s different because babies are not biologically dependent on anyone. You can give a baby to most competent people and they can take care of them. Hell, a baby of any mammal species can be taken care of by a human. A fetus can only be developed by its mother.

Fetuses can only develop when attached to another being. Babies develop fine as long as they get lipids. Like a living thing. If you cannot tell the difference between being literally attached to someone to live and being fed from someone externally, they tell me so I can quit this debate now.

Avatar image for i_like_swords
#635 Posted by i_like_swords (26203 posts) - - Show Bio

@lil_remains:

It’s different because babies are not biologically dependent on anyone. You can give a baby to most competent people and they can take care of them. Hell, a baby of any mammal species can be taken care of by a human. A fetus can only be developed by its mother.

Let's not change the goalposts here. To quote you from earlier: "Babies do have the ability to reproduce, it has not been fully developed. They will continue to develop this, without being parasitic to another human."

Fetus' also have the ability to reproduce once fully developed, and babies are also parasitical to human beings. There is no difference. So now you have changed the goalposts to "not biologically parasitical." Even with these shifted goalposts, I must ask, what is the difference? If nobody wants to look after a baby, it will die. It's technically speaking a parasite, it requires something in return for nothing.

Fetuses can only develop when attached to another being. Babies develop fine as long as they get lipids. Like a living thing. If you cannot tell the difference between being literally attached to someone to live and being fed from someone externally, they tell me so I can quit this debate now.

So now you are saying a parasite is a living thing as long as it is not a physically attached parasite. It can be a parasite that will one day be able to reproduce, just not right now. But if it's a parasite that can't reproduce right now, just some time later on, it's a very important difference if there is an umbilical cord attached.

You have also said, however and I quote: "However fetuses are biologically dependent on women until a certain stage of maturity. Until then (early to mid second trimester) they are not living."

This is pretty distressing, because you just said if something is physically attached to the mother, it is not a living thing, and yet you have also said that a second trimester fetus is a living thing despite being attached to the mother.

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you haven't actually thought about this issue very carefully, that you have picked a nice, fuzzy-sounding arbitrary cut off point for when killing a fetus is fine and when it isn't, and that your repeated attempts to bring the debate to a close with ad hominem (quoted below) are a thinly veiled attempt to mask the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about and your arguments are terrible.

Lol, what’s up with these flimsy ass points? Can you try a little harder?

Again, between the strawmen and points like this, this is an odd debate.

Also, it’s a lil pathetic to change the quotes in a debate on a serious debate like this.

If you cannot tell the difference between being literally attached to someone to live and being fed from someone externally, they tell me so I can quit this debate now.

Tell you what, you can quit the debate any time you want, nobody is keeping you here, but before you do, why don't you go ahead and explain to me why I should give a shit about anything you have to say? You haven't yet made a single coherent argument and have employed numerous fallacies, and are attempting to leave the debate entirely instead of proving me wrong. That doesn't sound like someone with much credibility to me.

Online
Avatar image for lil_remains
#636 Posted by Lil_Remains (1693 posts) - - Show Bio

@i_like_swords: Thanks for answering my question. Sorry for wasting your time. I should’ve left this debate when you employed Godwin’s law.

Avatar image for i_like_swords
#637 Posted by i_like_swords (26203 posts) - - Show Bio

@lil_remains: Mocking Godwin's Law is not the same as employing it. But I do accept your apology, and your concession!

Online
Avatar image for lil_remains
#638 Posted by Lil_Remains (1693 posts) - - Show Bio

@i_like_swords: Yeah, your ironclad points were too tough for me to overcome. Babies=fetuses literally no difference. Who needs lawmakers and scientists when we got this internet vegan.

Also, you used Godwin’s law unironically, don’t try to cover your cheeks now.

Avatar image for i_like_swords
#639 Posted by i_like_swords (26203 posts) - - Show Bio

@lil_remains:

Yeah, your ironclad points were too tough for me to overcome.

Apparently they were because...

Babies=fetuses literally no difference. Who needs lawmakers and scientists when we got this internet vegan.

You're now resorting to strawmans and ad hominem instead of backing your terrible arguments. Also trying to suggest that you speak on behalf of lawmakers and scientists lol.

Also, you used Godwin’s law unironically, don’t try to cover your cheeks now.

When did I compare anything to Hitler? Provide a quote.

Online
Avatar image for lil_remains
#640 Posted by Lil_Remains (1693 posts) - - Show Bio

@i_like_swords: What ad-hominem? You are in fact on the internet. And you are a vegan. Also, do you know what strawmen are? Like, when someone references actual abortion statistics make it about women supposedly bein irresponsible and quoting hitler. That’s a strawman, that’s a terrible argument.

“"Women are so irresponsible they will have millions of children they don't want, so let's give them the privilege of killing them." -Reasonable Person

"Let's give women agency." -Literally Hitler”

Avatar image for i_like_swords
#641 Posted by i_like_swords (26203 posts) - - Show Bio

@lil_remains: It's painful how often I have to correct you for not understanding anything.

What ad-hominem? You are in fact on the internet. And you are a vegan.

You attacked my credibility by saying "yeah lets ignore these experts and listen to you" - instead of attacking the substance of my argument you tried to undermine my credibility. Let me know if I need to run that by you again with easier words.

Also, do you know what strawmen are? Like, when someone references actual abortion statistics make it about women supposedly bein irresponsible and quoting hitler. That’s a strawman, that’s a terrible argument.

No, the strawman you used was this:

Babies=fetuses literally no difference. Who needs lawmakers and scientists when we got this internet vegan.

Which is why I directly quoted this and brought up strawmanning. When you quote something directly and respond to it, as it turns out, I'm not referring to something outside of the quote. At no point did I equate a baby and a fetus, however I did draw comparisons which you utterly failed to respond to.

“"Women are so irresponsible they will have millions of children they don't want, so let's give them the privilege of killing them." -Reasonable Person

"Let's give women agency." -Literally Hitler”

Again, how does making fun of people who make comparisons to Hitler equal me doing it? Do you understand sarcasm? Do you understand that I don't actually think the position of the "Reasonable Person" is a reasonable one, and that the second position can only belong to a Hitler clone?

Is all of this truly so hard to understand, or are you purposefully acting obtuse?

Online
Avatar image for the_handler
#642 Posted by The_Handler (16 posts) - - Show Bio

I often wish I was aborted

Say What?????????????????????

Avatar image for azureus
#643 Posted by Azureus (2589 posts) - - Show Bio

@i_like_swords:

So let's hash out this first part. You're saying that killing an animal for food is fine, doesn't matter what the animal is.

Loosely speaking, yes. However there are animals that shouldn't be eaten. I also respect the idea of people not eating their pets and whatnot, but stating that a person who does so is evil has no grounds whatsoever.

If we were in a survival situation where my only option was to eat an animal, I'm with you.

Are you saying if you had no other choice you'd be morally in the right?

However, I can go to the supermarket and very inexpensively buy and prepare for myself a lot of healthy food that tastes great. Done it for nearly 2 years and not dead yet.

Fair enough, but the same can be said for those who still keep animal products in their diets.

Animals have an interest in living,

So does every other living thing.

can feel pain,

Alright.

emotion,

Only basic emotions, which are hardwired into them. Nothing near as complex as a human or other primates.

care about their families with very strong instincts.

There we go.

From the time they are first bred, during their life in farms/processing facilities, and when they are in the slaughterhouse, they go through all kinds of physical and emotional pain.

I'm sure they suffer all kinds of physical pain, but I'm not sure they suffer all kinds of emotional pain. My family has raised animals on their farm for generations, even grown attached to them, but I can tell you firsthand whatever those animals feel is not the same as real emotion. It's similar, but not quite the same. The emotional distress they feel doesn't arise from a violation of values they developed. They simply lack those values.

Even if you assume you buy meat from the 1% of farms where the animals are treated like they are at a VIP spa, they are killed before their time is up and they grieve for each other's family.

I'm getting the distinct impression that this can only be considered wrong under the idea these animals experience life the way we do, and that's not true. These animals only feel the pain and only react to the pain. There is no moral harm done, it's only harmful in a simple aspect. In other words, animals don't feel the sense of being wronged, there is no proof of that, only sentiment. It's completely one dimensional.

It's not because they lack less cognitive ability than us that it's OK to eat them. That's dumb. Otherwise, is there a reason infants or mentally incapable individuals aren't on the menu?

Can you tell me why that is morally acceptable when you can just eat something else? I'm not asking you personally, you might be in a mountain somewhere with nothing to eat but boar and a wifi connection, but let's assume you are one of the average 99% of people who live in developed countries and can afford to give up meat.

Well why is it different from when you can't just eat something else? That implies it's only morally right if there is a necessity, but if you view their suffering as the reason it's wrong, then does it not stand to reason that killing and eating an animal out of necessity is simply an excuse?

For the same reason I value my own life - because I have a strong desire to live, and I have sentience -

...and you are a moral agent, something no animal can ever become. They don't have the means or responsiblity of acting in a moral manner, it's only us as Humans who do so and impose these values on ourselves.

I value the lives of animals and other people. The more sentient someone is, the more value I place on their life. Animals aren't as developed as people, but they are very intelligent:

I really don't know about this.

pigs and dogs are very smart,

They're still not human and can't be equated to us.

chickens can do basic puzzles

I don't see what this changes.

dairy cows cry for weeks on the same spot if you separate them from their children.

The entirely opposite reaction will be observed in cows when dealing with overgrown children. There is no real emotional attachment.

I view it as immoral to cause pain to beings with that level of sentience, because I wouldn't like if someone did it to me.

But you're clearly different, yes they may be sentient, but that's doesn't mean they have a moral status.

Avatar image for darkpsychiclord_prime
#644 Posted by DarkPsychicLord_Prime (4085 posts) - - Show Bio

As one of the main topics of discussion here in my country Argentina, i believe that abortion should only be allowed in certain cases like rape(and even then is still wrong) or if the health of the mother is risky and the baby is not likely to be born alive. Mainly because i'm a christian and since the life of a human being begins at conception, so does the soul. Since those lives can't have a say on what happens to them, it's not right for the mother to decide it. That is ending a human life.

I don't believe that abortion should be legal. What it should be done is the institution of sexual education on all schools and specially in the poorest sectors of the country, to prevent things like teen pregnancy and unwanted babies to happen. Besides, in my country, what the prochoice campaign wants is legal, secure and free abortion in all hospitals. What they should be fighting for is sexual education in all schools.

Avatar image for spareheadone
#645 Edited by SpareHeadOne (6097 posts) - - Show Bio

@the_handler:

Ecclesiastes 4:2-3

I congratulate the dead who are already dead more than the living who are still living. But better off than both of them is the one who has never been born , who has never seen the evil activity that is done under the sun.

The bible

Avatar image for rl4
#646 Posted by RL4 (1700 posts) - - Show Bio

It's funny how the "Pro-Life" people are really just "Pro-forced Birth" Because they don't care about the life of someone once they're born, and they're all too happy to ignore the fact that most people who get abortions do it because they're too young, and too poor to raise children the way they ought to be raised. It mostly stems from their backwards bronze-age religions from which they apparently get their morals. You know, the same philosophies that teach you how to properly treat your slaves. It's even funnier that these are apparently the "I want small government!" people yet they're perfectly willing to betray their morals when it comes to being able to signal how virtuous they are to their colleagues by declaring that their will should be imposed on someone else.

I'm pro choice.

Avatar image for jagernutt
#647 Posted by jagernutt (16343 posts) - - Show Bio

As one of the main topics of discussion here in my country Argentina, i believe that abortion should only be allowed in certain cases like rape(and even then is still wrong) or if the health of the mother is risky and the baby is not likely to be born alive. Mainly because i'm a christian and since the life of a human being begins at conception, so does the soul. Since those lives can't have a say on what happens to them, it's not right for the mother to decide it. That is ending a human life.

I don't believe that abortion should be legal. What it should be done is the institution of sexual education on all schools and specially in the poorest sectors of the country, to prevent things like teen pregnancy and unwanted babies to happen. Besides, in my country, what the prochoice campaign wants is legal, secure and free abortion in all hospitals. What they should be fighting for is sexual education in all schools.

This

Avatar image for spareheadone
#648 Posted by SpareHeadOne (6097 posts) - - Show Bio

People should be allowed to be born so they can suffer and slave and die

Avatar image for deactivated-5b9a7c57d0ad3
#649 Edited by deactivated-5b9a7c57d0ad3 (139 posts) - - Show Bio

@rl4:

Because they don't care about the life of someone once they're born

What? I'm literally dumbfounded by this statement. I don't even know how to reply to this.

Avatar image for lan_fan
#650 Posted by Lan_Fan (13342 posts) - - Show Bio

People should be allowed to be born so they can suffer and slave and die

Or cure cancer... Who knows?

Online