Posted by cheerio on Feb 17, 2007 · Member since Jul 2006 · 70 posts
My friend's boyfriend insists that if you are vegan, you HAVE to be pro-life on the abortion issue.
I wasn't really sure how to respond.....
What do you make of that?
Posted by AshleyKimball on Feb 17, 2007 · Member since Nov 2006 · 536 posts
At the stage in a fetus's developement where most abortions take place, the fetus, or cluster of cells, isn't even as complex as a housefly. If it can't think and feel and fend for itself, I wouldnt worry so much about "killing" it. Just like how us vegans "kill" plants.
0 likes
Posted by tanevab on Feb 17, 2007 · Member since Jan 2007 · 942 posts
I'm not here to give my view on prochoice/life. I just wanted to give a little more info. When most women have abortins they have already been pregnant for a month or two. At this point the embryo has a heartbeat and most of it's organs are developing. By week 10 the nervous system is developed and the embryo is able to feel pain. I teach this stuff so I just wanted to make sure the right info is presented.
0 likes
Posted by CristinaDawn on Feb 17, 2007 · Member since Sep 2006 · 107 posts
I refuse to get into a debate of prolife vs prochoice, because my beliefs are just that MINE... But from a medical standpoint, tanevab is correct. BY the time most ANY woman realizes she could be or is pregnant, the embryo has developed into more than just a "cluster of cells" Before the woman has even had time to consider the choices out there, little organs are developing.
In order for the statement if you are vegan you have to be prolife to be correct, you have to operate under the assumtion that ALL vegans agree on WHEN it becomes more than just a cluster of cells. Which just isnt going to happen.
0 likes
Posted by 7 on Feb 17, 2007 · Member since Oct 2006 · 471 posts
you have to operate under the assumtion that ALL vegans agree on WHEN it becomes more than just a cluster of cells. Which just isnt going to happen.
I think vegans know more than anyone, that people don't have to agree for something to be true. A lot of people don't agree that fish are animals, but that doesn't make them plants. . . It happens when it happens, not when we want it to happen. . .which is long before most women even realize the little one is there. . .
0 likes
Posted by katzenfreund on Feb 17, 2007 · Member since Oct 2006 · 245 posts
Just as I can't force other people to become vegans or vegetarians, I would not push my beliefs regarding choice on anyone. I don't think it is a good idea to force women into having children that they do not want to have. Enough child abuse and worse out there already....I have several friends who are social workers and the things they see are too awful to imagine.
0 likes
Posted by ungreen on Feb 17, 2007 · Member since Jan 2004 · 152 posts
.
0 likes
Posted by ramabanana on Feb 17, 2007 · Member since Jan 2007 · 136 posts
Dude, I think it is really messed up when some people have a problem eating honey because of bees getting smooshed but think it's "ok" to get abortion. If a woman doesn't want kids, then for goodness sake get some BIRTH CONTROL!!! People need to be responsible for their actions.
0 likes
Posted by Anonymous on Feb 17, 2007 · Member since Dec 1969 · 11789 posts
Well...I have not yet seen a man's point of view yet on this topic today....I am rushed for time, as I am about to head out into this wonderfull warm Paris evening.....Ungreen....you are so right! I agree with everything you said. My feeling is (though I have had a few glasses of French wine)...
What is better? To have a child, and not be able to provide for it? or... Have the child anyway? In my little world...I think that is the most important thing. You provide for a child. You give them the best you can. There are way too many that have children......that do not provide.....you have to ask yourself which is the lesser of two evils? Nobody will change a mind here for pro-choice or pro-life...It is a very personal choice. I say...leave it as it is....a choice. having a baby in your belly might be a wonderful feeling. Not being able to provide for it....well.......i think it speaks for itself....
Posted by stride4unity on Feb 17, 2007 · Member since Feb 2005 · 211 posts
I agree with Davedrum. As a male, I will never be faced with the decision of whether or not to have an abortion. So why should I be against the freedom to choose? I respect the choices of all women because it is their choice, their body, and their lives.
0 likes
Posted by KendraKat on Feb 17, 2007 · Member since Nov 2006 · 287 posts
Wow - Ungreen you said everything that I was thinking and didn't know how to put into words... Nicely done!
And Dave, you are right this debate is not going to change any of our opinions on this topic... But hopefully as a group of people known for their compassion and understanding we can learn to respect each others opinions!
Love and peace...
K. Kat 8)
0 likes
Posted by 7 on Feb 17, 2007 · Member since Oct 2006 · 471 posts
Does freedom to choose apply also to animal owners? Do you support shelters that kill animals because they can't be provided for? Isn't spaying and neutering the solution to that? You have a choice. . .keep your clothes on! The rape argument is ridiculous. The far than greater majority of abortions happen because it is there and easy to do. Very few people (though there are some) would have an illegal abortion, people would just be more careful and there would be less pregnancies. If eating meat were illegal, there may be a few, but the greater majority would eat grains and veggies. It happens because it's easy. How can you tell your daughter to kill her own child because it would be inconvenient for her to have it, and not understand why there is so much cruelty in the world? If your own child is disposable why wouldn't everyone and everything else be? How much easier is it to disregard any other life after you've already taken the life of your own child? I know many wonderful parents that are only parents because someone didn't want their child, they adopted. If you want to argue that because a woman is grown and can think for herself, and therefore has more rights than the helpless little being--what are you here for? Aren't we Lorax's of the world--here to speak for those who can't speak for themselves?
0 likes
Posted by ramabanana on Feb 17, 2007 · Member since Jan 2007 · 136 posts
7, this is something we can agree on. Both of my children were unplanned. I went through lots of stress feeling that I couldn't provide for them. But I can and will provide for them. So many people take the easy way out, and that is very sad. And not too long ago, I read something in a magazine about the tales and woes of unplanned parenthood, and some dude had gotten a lady pregnant, and it was somehow all her fault......bullshit!!!! That woman didn't put a gun to his head demanding his sperm....anyway, this is a very sensitive topic for all.
0 likes
Posted by carmenmichelle on Feb 17, 2007 · Member since Apr 2005 · 233 posts
hey! speaking of reproducing... i got a new bunny! his name is "snuggle-fluff-a-gus" :D
the posted topic is an emotionaltouchy one, and i am impressed at how respectful everyone's been so far! :)
0 likes
Posted by 7 on Feb 17, 2007 · Member since Oct 2006 · 471 posts
hey! speaking of reproducing... i got a new bunny!
TeeHee. . .nice segway! Congrats! I love his name.
the posted topic is an emotionaltouchy one, and i am impressed at how respectful everyone's been so far! :)
It is emotionaltouchy--like veg*sm is to meat-eaters. It astounds me how compassionate people can choose where to stop the compassion. . .usually where it's "comfortable" for them. . .but here I'm not trying to move toward the disrespectful (you should never have said "so far"). But this is where veg*ns get frustrated with others, and yet some succumb to it themselves. . .THIS is an incovenient truth. ..
0 likes
Posted by asenath on Feb 17, 2007 · Member since Nov 2005 · 167 posts
I just wanted to fourth or fifth or whatever it might be ungreen and Davedrum's comments.
In terms of the logic, though, I've always found it interesting that there really isn't the kind of straightforward logical consistency that you would see if, for example, being pro-life followed logically from veganism. If only the issues were so simple! If that were so, then surely people who were pro-life would all be anti-death penalty, which I think we all know to be hardly the case! Life, what counts as life, and which kinds of life are grievable and accounted for are deeply complicated issues and not so straightforward as this opening analogy assumes.
0 likes
Posted by 7 on Feb 17, 2007 · Member since Oct 2006 · 471 posts
Babies don't murder, asenath.
0 likes
Posted by asenath on Feb 17, 2007 · Member since Nov 2005 · 167 posts
Not really the point, 7. I was referring to the way the way in which people place value on life, and how it's rarely completely consistent in the way the question that opens this thread assumes.
0 likes
Posted by 7 on Feb 17, 2007 · Member since Oct 2006 · 471 posts
The point is innocent life. The animals that cannot choose to leave the ranches, to not be killed or eaten, to not be used for entertainment, the babies who cannot choose to be born or aborted. Isn't the responsiblity for the innocent on those who do have the power to protect them? Why should anyone protect an adult from the consequences of what is USUALLY her own actions when it costs the lives of innocents? We can also choose that "pests" and "varmit" are in our way and making our lives difficult, so do vegans support their killing? People here shoo flies and bees out of their houses (sending them somewhere else) and use humane traps to take mice and such somewhere where they can safely live out their remaining days. Dave never turns away a homeless animals, although he isn't hoping more will come. . .stuff happens, responsible compassionate people will take care of who needs taking care of, and if they don't want the "problem" of it, find another home that will.
0 likes
Posted by RobinMc on Feb 17, 2007 · Member since Jan 2003 · 131 posts
Actually, the latest credible study (2005) printed by the JAMA is that fetuses don't feel pain until about 28 weeks.
I do support a person's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability. I can assure you from personal experience that a baby born into a situation where s/he was not wanted feels much more pain.
The question can't be life itself because (unless you're fruitarian) we end the lives of plants all the time. The question can't be human life because vegans don't find humans to be by definition more valuable than other life. The question might be about pain and suffering. However, it seems to me that the question is when does a fertiized egg become a being. That's a really tough one to answer.
0 likes
Posted by 7 on Feb 17, 2007 · Member since Oct 2006 · 471 posts
The question can't be human life because vegans don't find humans to be by definition more valuable than other life.
I don't believe that. While other life deserves respect and value. . .if a puppy and a child are playing in the street, the 18 wheeler is comin' really fast, do you really debate over which one you're saving? (yeah, I'm sure the puppy would run, but he's having so much fun playing with the small child that he just doesn't notice)
And about those credible studies. . .who's giving them their credentials?
At the stage in a fetus's developement where most abortions take place, the fetus, or cluster of cells, isn't even as complex as a housefly. If it can't think and feel and fend for itself, I wouldnt worry so much about "killing" it. Just like how us vegans "kill" plants.
I'm not here to give my view on prochoice/life. I just wanted to give a little more info. When most women have abortins they have already been pregnant for a month or two. At this point the embryo has a heartbeat and most of it's organs are developing. By week 10 the nervous system is developed and the embryo is able to feel pain. I teach this stuff so I just wanted to make sure the right info is presented.
I refuse to get into a debate of prolife vs prochoice, because my beliefs are just that MINE... But from a medical standpoint, tanevab is correct. BY the time most ANY woman realizes she could be or is pregnant, the embryo has developed into more than just a "cluster of cells" Before the woman has even had time to consider the choices out there, little organs are developing.
In order for the statement if you are vegan you have to be prolife to be correct, you have to operate under the assumtion that ALL vegans agree on WHEN it becomes more than just a cluster of cells. Which just isnt going to happen.
you have to operate under the assumtion that ALL vegans agree on WHEN it becomes more than just a cluster of cells. Which just isnt going to happen.
I think vegans know more than anyone, that people don't have to agree for something to be true. A lot of people don't agree that fish are animals, but that doesn't make them plants. . . It happens when it happens, not when we want it to happen. . .which is long before most women even realize the little one is there. . .
Just as I can't force other people to become vegans or vegetarians, I would not push my beliefs regarding choice on anyone. I don't think it is a good idea to force women into having children that they do not want to have. Enough child abuse and worse out there already....I have several friends who are social workers and the things they see are too awful to imagine.
.
Dude, I think it is really messed up when some people have a problem eating honey because of bees getting smooshed but think it's "ok" to get abortion. If a woman doesn't want kids, then for goodness sake get some BIRTH CONTROL!!! People need to be responsible for their actions.
Well...I have not yet seen a man's point of view yet on this topic today....I am rushed for time, as I am about to head out into this wonderfull warm Paris evening.....Ungreen....you are so right! I agree with everything you said. My feeling is (though I have had a few glasses of French wine)...
What is better? To have a child, and not be able to provide for it? or... Have the child anyway? In my little world...I think that is the most important thing. You provide for a child. You give them the best you can. There are way too many that have children......that do not provide.....you have to ask yourself which is the lesser of two evils? Nobody will change a mind here for pro-choice or pro-life...It is a very personal choice. I say...leave it as it is....a choice. having a baby in your belly might be a wonderful feeling. Not being able to provide for it....well.......i think it speaks for itself....
I agree with Davedrum. As a male, I will never be faced with the decision of whether or not to have an abortion. So why should I be against the freedom to choose? I respect the choices of all women because it is their choice, their body, and their lives.
Wow - Ungreen you said everything that I was thinking and didn't know how to put into words... Nicely done!
And Dave, you are right this debate is not going to change any of our opinions on this topic... But hopefully as a group of people known for their compassion and understanding we can learn to respect each others opinions!
Love and peace...
K. Kat 8)
Does freedom to choose apply also to animal owners? Do you support shelters that kill animals because they can't be provided for? Isn't spaying and neutering the solution to that? You have a choice. . .keep your clothes on! The rape argument is ridiculous. The far than greater majority of abortions happen because it is there and easy to do. Very few people (though there are some) would have an illegal abortion, people would just be more careful and there would be less pregnancies. If eating meat were illegal, there may be a few, but the greater majority would eat grains and veggies. It happens because it's easy. How can you tell your daughter to kill her own child because it would be inconvenient for her to have it, and not understand why there is so much cruelty in the world? If your own child is disposable why wouldn't everyone and everything else be? How much easier is it to disregard any other life after you've already taken the life of your own child? I know many wonderful parents that are only parents because someone didn't want their child, they adopted. If you want to argue that because a woman is grown and can think for herself, and therefore has more rights than the helpless little being--what are you here for? Aren't we Lorax's of the world--here to speak for those who can't speak for themselves?
7, this is something we can agree on. Both of my children were unplanned. I went through lots of stress feeling that I couldn't provide for them. But I can and will provide for them. So many people take the easy way out, and that is very sad. And not too long ago, I read something in a magazine about the tales and woes of unplanned parenthood, and some dude had gotten a lady pregnant, and it was somehow all her fault......bullshit!!!! That woman didn't put a gun to his head demanding his sperm....anyway, this is a very sensitive topic for all.
hey! speaking of reproducing...
i got a new bunny!
his name is "snuggle-fluff-a-gus"
:D
the posted topic is an emotionaltouchy one, and i am impressed at how respectful everyone's been so far! :)
hey! speaking of reproducing...
i got a new bunny!
TeeHee. . .nice segway! Congrats! I love his name.
the posted topic is an emotionaltouchy one, and i am impressed at how respectful everyone's been so far! :)
It is emotionaltouchy--like veg*sm is to meat-eaters. It astounds me how compassionate people can choose where to stop the compassion. . .usually where it's "comfortable" for them. . .but here I'm not trying to move toward the disrespectful (you should never have said "so far"). But this is where veg*ns get frustrated with others, and yet some succumb to it themselves. . .THIS is an incovenient truth. ..
I just wanted to fourth or fifth or whatever it might be ungreen and Davedrum's comments.
In terms of the logic, though, I've always found it interesting that there really isn't the kind of straightforward logical consistency that you would see if, for example, being pro-life followed logically from veganism. If only the issues were so simple! If that were so, then surely people who were pro-life would all be anti-death penalty, which I think we all know to be hardly the case! Life, what counts as life, and which kinds of life are grievable and accounted for are deeply complicated issues and not so straightforward as this opening analogy assumes.
Babies don't murder, asenath.
Not really the point, 7. I was referring to the way the way in which people place value on life, and how it's rarely completely consistent in the way the question that opens this thread assumes.
The point is innocent life. The animals that cannot choose to leave the ranches, to not be killed or eaten, to not be used for entertainment, the babies who cannot choose to be born or aborted. Isn't the responsiblity for the innocent on those who do have the power to protect them? Why should anyone protect an adult from the consequences of what is USUALLY her own actions when it costs the lives of innocents? We can also choose that "pests" and "varmit" are in our way and making our lives difficult, so do vegans support their killing? People here shoo flies and bees out of their houses (sending them somewhere else) and use humane traps to take mice and such somewhere where they can safely live out their remaining days. Dave never turns away a homeless animals, although he isn't hoping more will come. . .stuff happens, responsible compassionate people will take care of who needs taking care of, and if they don't want the "problem" of it, find another home that will.
Actually, the latest credible study (2005) printed by the JAMA is that fetuses don't feel pain until about 28 weeks.
I do support a person's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability. I can assure you from personal experience that a baby born into a situation where s/he was not wanted feels much more pain.
The question can't be life itself because (unless you're fruitarian) we end the lives of plants all the time. The question can't be human life because vegans don't find humans to be by definition more valuable than other life. The question might be about pain and suffering. However, it seems to me that the question is when does a fertiized egg become a being. That's a really tough one to answer.
The question can't be human life because vegans don't find humans to be by definition more valuable than other life.
I don't believe that. While other life deserves respect and value. . .if a puppy and a child are playing in the street, the 18 wheeler is comin' really fast, do you really debate over which one you're saving? (yeah, I'm sure the puppy would run, but he's having so much fun playing with the small child that he just doesn't notice)
And about those credible studies. . .who's giving them their credentials?
Pages