Animal welfare proponents: How many unwanted animals have you adopted?
by Jacqueline Harvey
As a pro-life activist, I’ve heard my fair share of the mantra, “How many unwanted children are you going to adopt?” As a woman who desires to adopt and knows countless families created or supplemented by adoption, this is easy to retort: “As many as I can.”
But at my most recent trip to the pound, I had a thought that has made me think of this a different way.
Walking through the cages of the animals doomed to death in 72 hours if no one claimed them, my heart shattered. I wished I could save them all, but was fettered by the reality that I am simply not equipped to care for dozens upon dozens of dogs.
Then, I became angry. There was nothing wrong with those dogs that condemned them, but their owners. Irresponsible owners who failed to spay/neuter, failed to feed their animals, failed to properly restrain them, just flat failed them. Even the aggressive dogs were only such because of abuse or neglect.
The bottom line was that I can’t force people to spay/neuter. I can’t force them to properly vaccinate or feed their dependent animals- but moreover, I can’t do this for them. As much as I would LOVE to save and adopt the innocent animals who face the consequences of their irresponsibility, I can not….
Likewise, I can’t force people to practice sexual morality. I can’t force women to save sex only for individuals who will not abandon them when the line turns blue. I can’t force men to stick around and raise the children they create. I can’t force either gender to save sex for a time and circumstance where the natural consequences (children) are wanted. And as much as I would give anything to save and adopt the innocent children who face the consequences of this irresponsibility, I can not.
While 10 million couples do wait to adopt, over 3,000 children are killed each day by people who refuse to accept the obligation to simply birth them.To promote responsibility for the dependent, must one take other’s responsibility in order to not be a hypocrite? No. Even if I weren’t the mother of two rescued dogs, even if I hadn’t hand fed over a dozen birds, three kittens and one squirrel, I still have the right to express concern for animal welfare. I can still be indignant about the neglect and euthanasia of animals because humans fail to care for them. I can still oppose animal cruelty.
Even if I never adopt a child, I can still oppose the killing of them before their birth. I can still oppose people creating children only to dismember them and have them thrown in the trash. I do this not so much because I’m pro-personal responsibility, but because I’m pro-child. By that same token, I support animal welfare because I’m pro-animals. It’s about the innocent and dependent and our obligation to care for them.
In conclusion, I oppose the idea that pro-choicers aren’t responsible for their own children and further oppose the idea that somehow pro-lifers are responsible for everyone’s children: “So I’m expected to adopt all of the children you abandon, yet I can’t expect you not to abandon your children?” And no — killing your children is not an acceptable alternative to abandonment.
It breaks my heart when you remind me about kids in foster care due to abuse, neglect and abandonment that I simply can’t adopt: but the correct response is to stop abuse, neglect and abandonment rather than kill the potentially abused, neglected and abandoned. It also breaks my heart that animals are abused — but the responsibility lies with the abuser, not those that would rescue the animal if he/she could. Since I oppose irresponsible pet ownership, I’m not obligated to adopt every pet abandoned by an irresponsible owner. I only wish I could. Likewise, since I oppose killing unborn children, that doesn’t make me responsible for every child that is born and abused or abandoned. The only way to stop abuse is to punish abusers, not the victims.
Pro-choicers: When you use this argument, it sounds like you’re pro-child abuse. You’re essentially saying, “It’s dismemberment or abuse” when you should heartily oppose both. Do you somehow believe that supporting abortion exempts you from adoption yourself because if you had your way, these abused children wouldn’t even be alive? Please leave your thoughts in the comment section.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Let it be known to all that the second photo is that of my adorable Daisy Lou!
Jacque, for my birthday, could you post a picture of my uber cute mini dachshund on this post? (By the way…I think this post is awesome). I’ll send you a picture of my little Inga if you want. :)
I can put it in there for you, Lyssie. ;-) Just send it to me via email.
Happy birthday!!
Go Jacqueline.
I wonder what FF has to say about this one.
Aw Daisy Lou is so cute I could lick her!
Well I adopted Sandy over the summer, and Dave just adopted Smoothie. We are planning on adopting a few more hammies in the future, we just talked about it last night. Plus there were Buzz and Woody which I adopted from my cousin who couldn’t care for them. Then there was Ralphie and Squeaky. Also Flash, the mouse I found in a garbage can and bring food and toilet paper to.
Hmmm, Elizabeth. I, too, wonder. I hope one day that FF can post something that at least resembles an abstract thought.
Jess, wow- thems a lot of hamsters.
I have no hamsters. The die and make me cry.
Happy Birthday Lyssie! Lol, last night my boyfriend came over with Smoothie and his camera and we took our first “family portrait.” The we did talk about weddings. I said I wouldn’t want a stuffy traditional one like I imagined he would. He just looked at me and said, “I adopted a hamster, you think I want traditional?”
Just so you know, Daisy is taking her newfound fame quite well. I showed her her picture and she chose to yawn, curl up in a ball and nap.
So humble! That’s my girl!
Jacqueline, but think about how happy you make them during their lives! They are much happier living in a nice home then a pet shop.
*shake shake shake shake*
Lyssie- I can’t wait to see your dachshund! Mini dachshunds are the cutest little guys. The “flop” rather than walk. They’re like little sea lions.
We have a pet store close to where I live and they let people play with the puppies. One worker calls it “puppy therapy” and tells me to come in when I feel blue or need a pick me up. So I have puppy therapy ever so often. Mini dachshunds are the most fun to play with!
Jacquie, great post!!
Thanks, Bethany, I sent you the picture. I’m seriously having the worst birthday possible and this is making my day. Lol.
And Jacque- I’m so proud to have a dachsie. She’s the most unique animal we’ve ever had, and very nearly the cutest (I still maintain my kittens are the cutest things on the planet). She’s a long hair, too, so she’s really funny to look at. I sent her puppy pic. She was also the runt of the litter so she ended up being REALLY tiny for a mini.
Her full name is Fraulein Inga Von Schnitzel.
Yeah…
I notice that NOT ONE of you has suggested outlawing animal euthanasia as a possible solution.
That’s because outlawing animal euthanasia – like outlawing abortion – wouldn’t solve the problem of unwanted births. We must spay, neuter, and throw birth control around like candy to make sure nothing unwanted is conceived in the first place.
Hmmm, Elizabeth. I, too, wonder. I hope one day that FF can post something that at least resembles an abstract thought.
Posted by: Jacqueline at February 13, 2008 12:01 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Why would I express myself in abstract thought?
Reason and concrete thought work for me ‘jus fine.
I don’t know what is worse, putting your pet in a pound or just leaving it in the woods. I think leaving it in the wood is worse. That’s what people do around here. I think I’ve told everyone the story about the horror story that is Freetown State Forest.
Actually Jess- both my girls are adopted. I don’t buy animals because it contributes to breeding.
Lyssie- How is it that I have no yet said “Happy Birthday!”? Happy Birthday!
FF- Animals are not people. Would you support taking your unwanted children to the pound to be put down?
And, FF- All of these dogs were wanted at some point to have grown up. Maybe they were wanted as puppies but not as adults. Is death a good alternative to wantedness?
Should we euthanize our elderly when they cease to contribute and we no longer want them?
And by the way- my two dogs that barely, miraculously escaped the needle are very much wanted by me. If I ceased to want them, do they cease being valuable? What about cute little infants that grow up to be back-talking teens?
Please- support your “death all around” ideology!
But if you buy animals and spay and neuter them then that prevents someone else from adopting them and letting them breed.
I think it’s really awful and immature to adopt a pet and then get rid of it by dropping it off at a pound like an unwanted toy. It’s like people who adopt and then try to give the child back. Sick.
It’s wonderful that you were able to bring two girls into a loving family. I;m sure you are all very happy together.
FF –
Just for you
animals-club-freedom.blogspot.com/2008/01/euthanasia-is-unethical-for-humans-or.html
http://www.usatoday.com/life/2004-07-25-animal-shelters_x.htm
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/723066513
I could go on with this list and then start another list of all the no-kill animal shelters.
So, I many of us have said to stop euthenasia.
Want me to direct you to the PETA website? They have something like 1.8 million members and the majority want to outlaw pet euthenasia.
Jess- They appear happy. I definitely got the better end of the deal. :)
My Dad told me PETA actually euthanized many of the animals people gave to them . I don’t know though. My Dad actually surprised me by saying he can understand people who want to abort fetuses with down syndrome because it can be harder for older parents to care for adult children with disabilities. He always seemed so pro-life to me though. As for a vegetated state, I know my Dad wouldn’t want to be on any type of life support or live in a type of vegetated state. It would be unthinkable for him to live if he couldn’t work. The same with my Grandma, his Mom. Her biggest fear is going into a nursing home or assisted living. I was actually secretly scared when she got sick over the summer that she would do something drastic like kill herself. But with the help of her family and friends and a second opinion she’s almost back to normal.
Lyssie your dog is redonkulously cute! CuteOverLoad! CuteOverLoad! You must be proud ; )
Jess –
Yes – PETA has euthenised more dogs than most human societies/animal control. A couple of thier workers/volunteers were just on trial for killing several dogs. That is why I mentioned their members. The majority of their members don’t want euthenasia.
Lyssie –
HAPPY BIRTHDAY!
*tackle hug and smooches!*
Lyssie,
I want your doggy…you should bring him to play with Gabriella…it would be a cute fest.
And happy birthday girlie!!
Just like my pro-life stance with humans, I don’t think dogs should be put down, and believe strongly in birth control.
Happy b-day lyssie! One of my best friends’ birthdays is today too!
One has nothing to do with the other. If you have someone saying that pets should NOT be spayed and neutered but has no interest in taking care of the resultant pets then that would be equitable to antichoicers insisting every woman who gets pregnant “must” continue the pregnancy, but THEY have no obligation to the resultant children. If YOU want to insist a stranger “must” give birth because of YOUR problems with abortion – problems SHE doesnt have – then YOU can help take care of the child.
TR, should I also have to provide the means to help and provide shelter for all abused wives in the world, because I insist that men should not be able to abuse women, because of MY problems with domestic abuse?
Is my position inconsistent on that issue because I do not have the means to take care of all these women or pull them out of those situations?
Yes – PETA has euthenised more dogs than most human societies/animal control.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I loathe PETA, but that statement is patently untrue.
Yeah…PETA kinda scares me. Has anyone seen that South Park episode with PETA?
I volunteer at our local humane society shelter — though a little less often since we adopted our 3rd (and final) cat. Three cats are out limit — I swear.
When I first started volunteering, I would feel very angry with the people who gave up their pets. But then, I started to hear some of the real stories — such as an owner getting too sick to care for the dog or a new child having allergies. Of course there were many, flat-out irresponsible petowners as well. Yet, even the irresponsible ones deserve credit for giving the dog to the shelter instead of killing it or setting it off to run free.
Putting an animal up for adoption is often the best thing that happens for it. If a family can’t properly care for it, a new family may provide a new life. Some shelter animals get more attention from the staff and volunteers than they ever did in their first homes. We walk them at least 3 times a day and talk to them. Most of them thrive on all the action around the shelter — much better than spending all day locked in a basement or tied in the yard.
We have adopted all our animals, including a great Norwegien Elkhound for my (then) 80 year old dad. That dog, Smokey, came to us as the third family in her life — and she just loved it. When Dad died, she went to live with my brother and hangs out with their dog — loving everyday chasing around in their yard.
I know there are so many animals out there and many sad stories — but there are also many great stories of animals getting new, better lives and families growing through the addition of a few new paws.
Jess — volunteering at a shelter is also a good way to get puppy and kitten therapy.
When I first started volunteering, I would feel very angry with the people who gave up their pets. But then, I started to hear some of the real stories — such as an owner getting too sick to care for the dog or a new child having allergies. Of course there were many, flat-out irresponsible petowners as well. Yet, even the irresponsible ones deserve credit for giving the dog to the shelter instead of killing it or setting it off to run free.Posted by: LB at February 13, 2008 2:21 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thank you and Amen.
Here in San Bernardino County we’ve had over 7000 forclosures in the last calendar year. Prior to that we had wildfires wipe out hundreds of homes in the area.
This year has been heartbreaking for those of us who do rescue.
http://tinyurl.com/2psz4e
HAPPY BIRTHDAY LYSSA!!!!!!!!!
HAPPY BIRTHDAY LYSSIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I loathe PETA, but that statement is patently untrue.
Really, FF?
HIGH-PROFILE PETA EUTHANIZES
MORE THAN 1,000 LAST YEAR
By MATTHEW BARAKAT, Associated Press Writer
July 29, 2000
RICHMOND, Va. (AP) – It may seem surprising that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals – a group that often comes to the defense of rats – euthanized more than 1,300 cats and dogs last year.
But PETA President Ingrid Newkirk says it was the only humane thing to do. Last year, the Norfolk-based animal-rights group took in 2,103 companion animals. It was able to find homes for 386, and put down 1,325. (Transfers and reclamations by owners accounted for most of the rest of the animals PETA took in.)
“It is a totally rotten business, but sometimes the only kind option for some animals is to put them to sleep forever,” Newkirk said. “I don’t think a dog living in a cage walking in circles for the rest of its life in a dog prison is a swell thing.”
While several dozen shelters in Virginia have adopted a no-kill philosophy, PETA has not.
This year has been heartbreaking for those of us who do rescue.
Thanks for rescuing!
Here are copies of documents that have been either filed and copied or info that was on their website and copied.
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/downloads/PetaKillsAnimals.pdf
I think PETA crossed the line so many years ago, they aren’t really in the business of helping animals or people. Most of the time they are just about publicity and sensationalism.
HIGH-PROFILE PETA EUTHANIZES
MORE THAN 1,000 LAST YEAR
Posted by: Jacqueline at February 13, 2008 2:48 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wow. Welcome to Hell.
I’ve worked at both San Bernardino County and San Bernardino City shelters.
Keep in mind that this is only ONE county out of thousands in the United States:
http://www.pe.com/digitalextra/metro/animalshelters/vt_stories/PE_News_Local_petkill21.57d7e.html
“Last year, Inland-area shelter workers killed more than 72,343 unwanted dogs and cats. Most were strays, former pets allowed to run loose, dumped on back streets, left in the desert or set free in the mountains.”
FF- No kill shelters euthanize 0 animals a year.
FF- No kill shelters euthanize 0 animals a year.
Posted by: Jacqueline at February 13, 2008 3:27 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That’s true.
Two of the most vocal, self-righteous no-kill shelters in this area still dump all of their unplaceables on animal control.
It’s true. They never killed anything. They just left all of their dirtywork to the lesser beings and sin-eaters.
Jacqueline —
No-kill shelters are a nice idea, but in practice they are only a drop in the bucket. They do not take all the animals found stray or taken in as vicious. They don’t take in animals in poor condition.
I volunteer with the Humane Society and we do have to euthanize animals too. For us it isn’t a space problem — but disease and temperment. We have had to put down kittens because they carried a disease that would have killed all the cats in the shelter. We have to put down vicious animals — after testing them and attempting to train them — because we value the life of the children and adults that may cross the animal’s path.
Our main work is on adopting out animals. We fund operations on some animals through a great donation pool and we also do training of both animals and humans. We work with breed rescue groups and other shelter to move the animals around — giving them a chance to find new homes. We don’t euthanize due to space — ever. I believe our shelter sees the possibilities in the animals — but we are not no-kill.
I don’t see my work with the Humane Society conflicting with my strong pro-life stance. I don’t like euthanizing pets — sometimes it is necessary. Animals are not humans, we treat them humanely — not as humans.
Best Homer Simpson quote: PETA stands for People Eating Tasty Animals — :)
The point is PETA euthanizes. Stop denying it.
Even the aggressive dogs were only such because of abuse or neglect.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nope. Some are just bad.
As many as 1 in 5 Cocker Spaniels have rage disorders. Other breeds are bred principly for aggression.
The point is PETA euthanizes. Stop denying it.
Posted by: Jacqueline at February 13, 2008 4:04 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I never said that PETA doesn’t euthanize.
PETA doesn’t claim to be no-kill:
But PETA President Ingrid Newkirk says it was the only humane thing to do. Last year, the Norfolk-based animal-rights group took in 2,103 companion animals. It was able to find homes for 386, and put down 1,325. (Transfers and reclamations by owners accounted for most of the rest of the animals PETA took in.)
“It is a totally rotten business, but sometimes the only kind option for some animals is to put them to sleep forever,” Newkirk said. “I don’t think a dog living in a cage walking in circles for the rest of its life in a dog prison is a swell thing.”
Thank you for making my point: breeding for aggression is once again and human failure. And since most dogs picked up by animal control are adults, they certainly have been conditioned to be aggressive through abuse/other means to be that old and still alive.
Happy Birthday to you, Lyssie!!
Thanks, everyone! Now back to studying for organic chemistry….
MK…a few of those prayers? Maybe? Cuz this test might kill me.
Older sick animals can be just as good additions to the family. They tend to be more loyal and loving IMO. Sandy was older and sickly when we got him and he was worth the vet bills.
Lol Bethany at the picture, if my ham were to bake a cake for Lyssie he’d use all his favorite foods: corn, lettuce, carrots and cherrios. Yum!
FF, it’s noble of you to help these needy animals.
Daisy was 6 and brain-damaged from abuse. Her skull on one side is permanently caved in from a blow to the head. She shakes sometimes and has equilibrium issues due to partial paralysis on one side. She was old, damaged and abandoned- the type that would be put down right away. It’s by the grace of God that I got her and she is a gift to us all. Despite what she endured, she’s a happy girl.
Some would consider Daisy in poor condition, but she is an angel with fur. Once again, it was the humans in her life that failed her- nothing to do with her.
‘Uno’ the Beagle dog won the Westminster dog show last night. Awesome.
My grandparents had a beagle named “Desi-lu.”
FF, it’s noble of you to help these needy animals.
Posted by: Jess at February 13, 2008 5:34 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It’s not noble, it’s purely selfish.
I like it.
I like the animals, I like the people, I love running into my past charges with their new families.
I send all of my charges to their new homes with a self-addressed stamped Christmas card. Every December I receive cards with pics of the monsters in antlers and Santa suits. (Although a couple of years after I placed Gunter I received a Chaunukka card from him. Who knew?)
I do this because it makes ME feel good. (Or at least I tell myself that when I look at the vet bills, my gross carpets, and my fur-covered, chewed, claw-sharpened furniture…)
“It’s not noble, it’s purely selfish.”
I don’t care if you like it it’s noble. It would be selfish if you were having sex with them.
Well, thank you.
Noble people like me probably deserve some vanilla ice cream with extra dark chocolate syrup.
I think being a vegan is harder than anything I do. Don’t you ever hear the siren’s song of frying bacon? Doesn’t it cry out to you?
“Eat me… EEEEATTTTTTT MEEEEEEE…”
No I always knew i wasn’t a meat eater but i think the vegan thing is falling downhill on a bed of flaming nails.
” Don’t you ever hear the siren’s song of frying bacon? Doesn’t it cry out to you?”
Don’t you ever hear the siren’s song of frying Jess? Don’t I cry out to you?
No I always knew i wasn’t a meat eater but i think the vegan thing is falling downhill on a bed of flaming nails.
Posted by: Jess at February 13, 2008 6:28 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I could live without meat, but I must have dairy.
My latest obsession is cheese curds. Battered and fried cheese curds:
http://store.wfucheese.com/cheesecurds.html
Don’t you ever hear the siren’s song of frying Jess? Don’t I cry out to you?
Posted by: Jess at February 13, 2008 6:33 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think it’s that flaming bed of nails you mentioned. Avoid it at all cost.
I wouldn’t even call myself vegan right now. It’s so much easier to be vegan at school cause EVERYTHING is just sooo bad. Speaking of frying Jess, I managed not to set my pants on fire in front of the wood stove today. Stupid wood stove I’m always cold.
TR, should I also have to provide the means to help and provide shelter for all abused wives in the world, because I insist that men should not be able to abuse women, because of MY problems with domestic abuse?
Is my position inconsistent on that issue because I do not have the means to take care of all these women or pull them out of those situations?
Posted by: Bethany at February 13, 2008 1:33 PM
…………………………………
That is a backwards analogy. You of course, cannot provide support for a child until one exists. Mandating that they must come into existence sets you up for the responsibility of supporting them. Magically preventing men from abusing women would prevent the necessity of providing for the women they abuse. Mandating that a woman stay in an abusive relationship or mandating that men be abusive would make you responsible for the care of those women.
I couldn’t be vegan. I’m not a fan of Dairy (I perfer soy milk) but I’d miss things that are made with milk, eggs and butter. Baked goods come to mind.
Happy Birthday, Lyssie!
I brought two dogs to Animal Welfare. One drove me nuts & it was getting worse and worse. I tried everything with her, but she got more and more evil as things progressed. The last straw was when she took a dump ON MY PILLOW. It was either drop-kick her like a football off the balcony, or bring her to Animal Welfare and pray that she’d be someone else’s problem. She was a 5-year old Maltese, so I don’t think she had a problem being adopted.
The other one was a Chow. She was born vicious. Her favorite thing to do was to mawl people. I swear that dog had the devil in her. I tried with that blasted dog for 6 months, finally, to Animal Welfare it went. I BEGGED the workers to euthanize her. She was horrible, but adorable, and I didn’t want to see a child get hurt by this dog.
That is a backwards analogy. You of course, cannot provide support for a child until one exists. Mandating that they must come into existence sets you up for the responsibility of supporting them. Magically preventing men from abusing women would prevent the necessity of providing for the women they abuse. Mandating that a woman stay in an abusive relationship or mandating that men be abusive would make you responsible for the care of those women.
Sally, I supported my children for nearly 9 months before i was able to meet them face to face. The prenatal care that I received at the doctor was certainly support for my babies who actually existed.
As to whether they are in existence before birth, my husband and I used to play with the babies while they were in my tummy. I’d push a foot softly, and they’d kick me back.
All of my children had such different personalities while they were in my womb. My daughter was always the hyper one who kept kicking into all hours of the night. Turns out, she’s a light sleeper. She still is that way, and she’s 6 years old. My first son, while in the womb, had to be persuaded to wake up. After being born, I soon learned that he could sleep through a hurricane, without flinching.
My children responded to music, laughter, talk, all while in my womb. And they even had the hiccups. My littlest one sucked his thumb in the womb and still does now.
All of that just doesn’t happen to a something that “isn’t in existence”.
That is a backwards analogy. You of course, cannot provide support for a child until one exists. Mandating that they must come into existence sets you up for the responsibility of supporting them. Magically preventing men from abusing women would prevent the necessity of providing for the women they abuse. Mandating that a woman stay in an abusive relationship or mandating that men be abusive would make you responsible for the care of those women.
Sally, I supported my children for nearly 9 months before i was able to meet them face to face. The prenatal care that I received at the doctor was certainly support for my babies who actually existed.
As to whether they are in existence before birth, my husband and I used to play with the babies while they were in my tummy. I’d push a foot softly, and they’d kick me back.
All of my children had such different personalities while they were in my womb. My daughter was always the hyper one who kept kicking into all hours of the night. Turns out, she’s a light sleeper. She still is that way, and she’s 6 years old. My first son, while in the womb, had to be persuaded to wake up. After being born, I soon learned that he could sleep through a hurricane, without flinching.
My children responded to music, laughter, talk, all while in my womb. And they even had the hiccups. My littlest one sucked his thumb in the womb and still does now.
All of that just doesn’t happen to a something that “isn’t in existence”.
Posted by: Bethany at February 13, 2008 8:59 PM
…………………………………..
Bethany, you did not monetarily ‘support’ your conceptii into existence. You did so biologically. With no will of your own. Gestation is a mentally passive process. You cannot think or will a conceptus into a human being. Neither can a doctor. As much as they would like you to believe so. With your monetary support of course.
Labeling possible children with personalities before they are in the least bit able to actually express them is sad to me.
Rather than learning who those children are, you have labeled them to suit your whimsical concept of who you wanted them to be before you ever met them.
Sad.
Sally,
No, it’s not sad, and Bethany never said that she knew how their personalities were before they were born. She was comparing their activities in the womb to their activities out of the womb. She noticed a difference with both children both inside and outside the womb.
Maybe you just were not aware of your children’s activity when they were in your womb. Your’s may have just been pregnancies only looking forward to them when they would be born, while Bethany’s may have been a blessed experiences both while she carried them and after.
Labeling possible children with personalities before they are in the least bit able to actually express them is sad to me.
Rather than learning who those children are, you have labeled them to suit your whimsical concept of who you wanted them to be before you ever met them.
Sad.
I’m pretty sure she met them the day they decided to be part of her body! You seem to believe they just were magically given a personality once they were born..nope they weren’t. They had it the WHOLE TIME.
Bethany,
My daughter was the same way in the womb. Used to kick the crap outta me when I was ready for bed. She’s such a light sleeper too. She also danced all the time on the inside when I went to my brother’s dance concerts. Getting ready for her career early lol.
Anon, you articulated exactly how I feel!
And Elizabeth, I know the feeling! Some nights I didn’t get any sleep. :-D
You cannot think or will a conceptus into a human being.
You’re right, Sally. God does that.
It’s funny my brother was very active in the womb, I was sorta active, and my sister was barely active at all. Mom kept asking the doctor to check if she was okay. Kristen turned out with many of the good genes (she doesn’t have to wear glasses and no epilepsy) but is more heavyset. My brother is a dancer, and I’m somewhere inbetween. It’s so funny how that stuff matches.
Bethany,
I still don’t sometimes. :/
We share a room so she’s in my bed when I go in to go to bed.
When it’s time to get up in the morning..she sits on my head. eeeesh.
LOL! Elizabeth that is so funny. Mine used to come in every morning and slap me and James in the face (this is when they were toddlers). They were wanting to wake us up and they didn’t realize that it hurt when they slapped. lol It was so cute though.
PIP, I agree, it really is neat how it matches like that!
Bethany,
Gabriella is into slapping now. I wish we could move on from that phase QUICKLY. I think she kind of is over it because she hasn’t been doing it as much recently, but she used to slap a lot.
And it’s funny the first time she sits on my head..but then when she’s starts bouncing up and down..I’m like “Go get a toy or I’m putting you in your bed” lol. Then she goes and gets a toy and hits me with it. I can’t win.
Why would I express myself in abstract thought?
Reason and concrete thought work for me ‘jus fine.
Posted by: FetusFascist at February 13, 2008 12:34 PM
Gotta agree with that. I am more of a concrete person myself.
I remember when we started a program here called SNAP (Spay Neuter assistance Program. I attended a fundraiser to buy and equip a truck to drive around to low income areas and neuter people’s animals for free. When I think of all the money we have saved the local animal control bureau…
Anyway SNAP is in many communities now and has altered thousands of animals. It is one of my favorite charities. Sean Hawkins started it. He is the most awesome guy.
I have “adopted” three stray cats. Three that would’ve died, or at best lived a short time as cast-offs had I not taken them in. But I do have a limit, as Jill suggests, and at my advanced age I am not qualified to adopt human kids. I wish I was, but I don’t let that stop me from opposing the elective killing of innocent unborn babies. Just as those who oppose animal abuse are not hypocrites if they don’t adopt “every abused animal they can find”, no one is a hypocrite for opposing something as immoral as abortion.
We always spay or neuter our pets as soon as they are old enough.
My life long dream has been to be the Crazy Cat Lady. And my fiancee supports that idea 100%. We are intending to build a large house in the country away from major roads (I’ve lost too many cats to cars) and raise a harem of little kitties. Maybe have one or two human children to help out with cleaning litterboxes, feeding, petting and the like. But they are all getting neutered and spayed when they are old enough. Then when we want another we go to a shelter to get it.
I remember I went to PetCo once and saw this really beautiful black female cat. Her name was Lotus. I was pinning for her so much I almost bought her. But I was 17 at the time and my parents would have killed me if I brought home another cat. *sigh*
I’d like to mention that cats are more important to me than humans. Much more rewarding.
**I’d like to mention that cats are more important to me than humans. Much more rewarding.**
CCL….I honestly, 100%, completely agree. I think they’re cuter, too. Lol. I’ve always had a soft spot for animals, more often than for humans. I always cry in dramatic movies if an animal gets hurt or dies….whereas I don’t get very emotional over the idea of a person biting the bullet. I always have more emotional connection to the animal. Watch the movie “I am Legend”. I bawled, but not because 5.6 billion people died. lol.
Lyssie: I’ve always had a soft spot for animals, more often than for humans.
I could shoot a lot of people before I’d shoot most dogs.
The issue that you have all been ignoring is that humanity is 100% responsible for creating all breeds of domestic pets.
They would not exist were it not for our selective breeding programs and selfish desire to take creatures out of their natural environment and turn them into little more than possessions or moving pieces of furniture.
One of the people posting here commented that it would be better to euthanasia a dog than let it roam free in the woods. That person was correct, because we have bred-out most of the survival instincts necessary for domestic animals to take care of themselves – not to mention the genetic disorders that plague many pure-bred pets, such as hip displaysia and chronic breathing problems.
Human beings are vile creatures. You’ll freely sit there and say ‘abortion isn’t natural and use that as an excuse, yet you’ll casually use your computer while laud technology like pacemakers, cars, television, and dishwashers.
You’ll sit there and chew on your steak, wearing your leather shoes. Yet you won’t consider the billions of animals killed every week to ensure your taste buds are satisfied.
You’ll justify it by saying “But I need to eat” while you ignore all the vegetable produce as you browse the supermarket.
I find it ironic that you will cry injustice at a pregnancy being terminated prematurely, by an ‘unnatural’ procedure while you casually live your life in the most unnatural ways possible; burning fossil fuels and polluting the planet – while supporting the murder of countless animals simply to please your stomach.
If your excuse for butchering a cow is “Oh, but it doesn’t feel or think like us” then why don’t you murder all the intellectually handicapped people? Why are you so…bothered by an embryo being killed?
Does being human makes us more ‘special’ than other animals? If so, then what have we done to deserve being ‘special’?
We’ve raped, pillaged, maimed, murdered, destroyed, defiled, polluted and exterminated to get where we are today. Why then do we deserve to be thought as ‘better’ than every other species? No other animal has done so much damage to other species as well as the planet.
If you can justify killing thousands of different species simply to fill your belly, then how can you be against abortion? If you think abortion is just selfish convenience, then what are you doing to the innocent creatures of Earth?
Caitlin J,
God gave us dominion over ALL species.
However, God did not give one human dominion over another.
IMO, that’s why.
That only has relevance for those who associate with one of the various Christian faiths.
Even then, it’s no excuse to rape the planet so severely for your selfish convenience.
The only way to stop abuse is to punish abusers, not the victims.
Jacqueline, I’m all for reducing the abuse of born children.
……
Pro-choicers: When you use this argument, it sounds like you’re pro-child abuse. You’re essentially saying, “It’s dismemberment or abuse” when you should heartily oppose both. Do you somehow believe that supporting abortion exempts you from adoption yourself because if you had your way, these abused children wouldn’t even be alive?
In some cases I think it’s logical to expect that if born, a kid would be abused. This applies more in certain other countries than in the US, IMO, yet at times it’s in the US too.
If a woman doesn’t want to continue a pregnancy because she doesn’t want the child to be abused, then we’d have Pro-Choicers supporting her in that, and Pro-Lifers (often) against it. Should that baby be born and be abused, then who is more culpable? I realize an argument can be made that Pro-Lifers are really “not at fault” for that, but it’s most certainly not the Pro-Choicers.
I don’t see that we should heartily oppose abortion, the legal abortion that we now have. If a given woman wants to end a pregnancy, we do not have any reasons for forbidding it that trump the reasons of the woman herself.
Doug
Caitlin,
You do realize that chicken and cattle are farm-raised SPECIFICALLY for consumption, right? What’s not edible is used for other things.
It’s not like I’m going off to hunt for them. If that were the case, then I could absolutely see your point.
Do you use paper for anything?
God gave us dominion over ALL species.
Says who? A book written by fallible people with an agenda over a period of centuries, two millenia ago?
Honestly, Ray, DON’T GET ME STARTED!!!!
Caitlin,
Animals get slaughtered because they provide protein and (in appropriate quantities) contributes to overall nutrition. People eat meat, they always have. We’re omnivores. Vegetarians I know work very hard to get their protein. And being a vegetarian besides for personal reasons is not going to stop the slaughter of animals any more than “well I personally will never get an abortion, but…” is not going to stop the slaughter of people.
Most people buy both meat and vegetables at the market. For people that cook their food they often buy more than meat and bread products.
I don’t want to be rude, but your rant here is misguided. Most people here are pro-animal rights and anti-abortion. I think there will always be meat, but I support a shift in raising them- no more antibiotics, no more CAFO’s, more free range meat and support of smaller farmers. A few people here are vegans (if only temporarily ;) If you want to get meat criminalized, you should begin with practical means of legislation. Do you have any ideas?
So it’s okay to slaughter animals if they’re bred specifically to be eaten? That’s yet another example of us tampering with nature by selectively breeding traits into animals – as with domestic pets. Do you think size 12 chickens (the very large ones, if your country uses a different sizing method) are natural?
Regardless of them being bred specifically to be eaten (which I find abhorent), you’re ending a LIFE for your selfish convenience!
Do you NEED to take that life? NO!
So why do it?
In nature, no one species is “above” another. However there are always predators and prey. Some poor antelope in Africa will be slaughtered by predators today. Our eating of meat (within humane limits, since we have the conscience) is perfectly natural.
Prettyinpink,
So it’s okay to kill animals for the most convenient source of protien, rather than finding an more difficult alternative.
Why then is it not okay to abort for convenience, and you’re encouraging a more difficult alternative?
It doesn’t wash. You’re saying one form of selfish convenience is okay, but another is not.
I can’t follow your flawed reasoning.
Either all pro-lifers should turn vegan to null this glaring inconsistency, or they should recognise thier hypocrisy.
I personally think that the eating of meat and vegetables balances the earth out.
Just think, if we did not touch a single animal, and all we ate were veggies, what would our land look like? Could the farmers around the world keep up with the demand? What about drought, floods, fires, etc?
Our eating of meat (within humane limits, since we have the conscience) is perfectly natural.
PIP, just what are “humane limits”?
I think I better hold off admitting how many chicken wings I ate last night until I get the answer.
That’s just a crystal clear indication of how thoroughly we have screwed up this planet.
Caitlin, it is a natural source of protein.
Are you pro-life?
Also, do you have ideas about how to get legislation passed to outlaw meat?
Just think, if we did not touch a single animal, and all we ate were veggies, what would our land look like? Could the farmers around the world keep up with the demand? What about drought, floods, fires, etc?
You can feed a vastly larger number of people on veggies grown on a certain amount of land versus how many people can be fed from the meat from animals raised on the same land.
“PIP, just what are “humane limits”?
I think I better hold off admitting how many chicken wings I ate last night until I get the answer.”
You may consider this subjective, this is my belief, but I believe humane limits let the animals live naturally until they are slaughtered, and then killed with minimum pain. Tampering with nature has given us some health problems. I did a science fair project on the antibiotics they put in their feed. Scary stuff.
LOL doug you crack me up.
Perhaps you could address the inconsistency of saying one form of convenience is okay and the other is not.
Don’t pull the ‘natural’ crap on me. Humans are the most unnatural beast there is. Look to your clothes, care, jewelry, your computer, your shrink-wrapped produce, your frozen foods…
‘It’s not natural’ or ‘It is natural’ is an argument that will never fly when discussing our species.
If we did not touch a single animal, then we might have some animal population balance problems. Unless you are one of those people who think we should revert to tribal living? Then it would be cool. But the tribes will probably still eat meat.
You’re saying one form of selfish convenience is okay, but another is not.
Caitlin, right on. It’s a very, very relative deal, and you make some good points.
I see the suffering that one child can endure in Darfur, etc., and then I see all the people so upset about abortion, even where the pregnant woman wants to end the pregnancy.
I would much rather have that child in the Sudan have a good life, rather than have a given number of pregnancies continued, be it one, a hundred, a thousand, etc.
Doug
You can feed a vastly larger number of people on veggies grown on a certain amount of land versus how many people can be fed from the meat from animals raised on the same land.
Doug,
Do you have any stats to back up that claim?
Did you read my post thanking you for my newly-learned skill?
PIP, I do shudder to think of the chicken farms where the entire life takes place within a cage, and puppy mills too.
Okay, it was 30 wings, although I got lucky and most of ’em were drumsticks.
“Perhaps you could address the inconsistency of saying one form of convenience is okay and the other is not.”
I’m not dissing the vegetarians, because I find it admirable. But I think that meat is a perfectly natural source of protein. We don’t eat other humans, though. Or at least, very few of us do, anyway.
But, seriously, are you pro-life? Quit avoiding the question.
“Don’t pull the ‘natural’ crap on me. Humans are the most unnatural beast there is. Look to your clothes, care, jewelry, your computer, your shrink-wrapped produce, your frozen foods…”
Cultural memes. Is that why its not okay to kill animals? Because we are unnatural?
“‘It’s not natural’ or ‘It is natural’ is an argument that will never fly when discussing our species.”
We evolved to eat meat. I think that would continue for quite a while.
Beans are also a natural source of protein. Are they off limits too?
“I see the suffering that one child can endure in Darfur, etc., and then I see all the people so upset about abortion, even where the pregnant woman wants to end the pregnancy.”
I don’t understand why you can’t be outraged at both. At every human rights abuse!
“PIP, I do shudder to think of the chicken farms where the entire life takes place within a cage, and puppy mills too.”
Definitely. We saved one of our dogs from a puppy mill. Scary stuff.
“Okay, it was 30 wings, although I got lucky and most of ’em were drumsticks.”
LOL that’s a lot of wings.
Laura: Don’t you ever hear the siren’s song of frying bacon? Doesn’t it cry out to you?
Jess: Don’t you ever hear the siren’s song of frying Jess? Don’t I cry out to you?
Jess, I hope you never get fried, but you are pretty darn cute. And you post some hilarious and thoughtful stuff.
My wife and I don’t eat veal or lamb, or really, any kind of sheep meat. We just like ’em too much. And I know – what does it really matter if it’s a calf or a cow that’s a little older? It’s all in the mind.
Doug
“I see the suffering that one child can endure in Darfur, etc., and then I see all the people so upset about abortion, even where the pregnant woman wants to end the pregnancy.”
PIP: I don’t understand why you can’t be outraged at both. At every human rights abuse!
Because with abortion there is usually no suffering on the part of the unborn. And with abortion it is also not just a question of the unborn, but of the pregnant woman, where suffering can be undeniable.
Not all pregnancies continue all the way through. Some of it is without (direct) human cause – miscarriages, and some of it is caused by what the woman or couple wants.
I’m fine with that. I do not see it as “sad” to allow a woman to end an unwanted pregnancy.
If there is sadness in this deal, I see it in the cases of miscarriage where the woman or couple really does want to have kids.
“You can feed a vastly larger number of people on veggies grown on a certain amount of land versus how many people can be fed from the meat from animals raised on the same land.”
Anonymous: Doug, Do you have any stats to back up that claim?
Yeah, but now I gotta go search for it… sheesh. I figured somebody would ask about that.
No – didn’t see your post yet about the HTML stuff, but you’re certainly welcome. Jill’s site doesn’t work like some others, and it takes a bit of getting used to, whether new to HTML or not.
Number of pure vegetarians who can be fed on the amount of land needed to feed 1 person consuming meat-based diet: 20
This comes from:
http://tinyurl.com/37g8ts
“If there is sadness in this deal, I see it in the cases of miscarriage where the woman or couple really does want to have kids.”
I think any unborn child’s death is sad. Like Bethany’s experience, miscarriage can be really hard. I think abortion is hard, too, not only on the people involved but also because it reflects a disrespect for human life. It’s ability to feel shouldn’t be related to the ethics of killing it, similar to how it’s not okay to kill people in comas that won’t be able to feel it.
I also sympathize with any suffering on the part of the woman. Most suffering on the part of the pregnant woman can be alleviated with changes, too: universal health care to alleviate money problems associated with pre and post natal care, all the way through adulthood; prosecution of those who would fire or demote a woman through pregnancy; School programs to help pregnant women keep educational goals, etc. It seems most of the women do not want to become pregnant because they want to keep having a career- but a woman shouldn’t have to choose between a career and life or a child!
But I think we can both agree that prevention is the easiest way to help this problem. If only more pro-life organizations agreed with me on this! It seems so odd to be against both. Seems so backwards to me.
I’m not dissing the vegetarians, because I find it admirable. But I think that meat is a perfectly natural source of protein. We don’t eat other humans, though. Or at least, very few of us do, anyway.
Even when the meat is engineered through entirely unnatural means? We’ve bred traits in our ‘food’ animals to the exclusion of other traits. Do you think that would have happened without our intervention? Protien is natural, sure. The methods in which you are advocating it to be ‘grown’ and ‘harvested’ in (by slaughtering innocent beasts) is not ‘natural’.
But, seriously, are you pro-life? Quit avoiding the question.
I’m entitled to avoid any question I don’t consider relevant to the current debate. My pro-life or pro-choice stance doesn’t change the validity of my statements. Address the argument, not the person, thanks.
We evolved to eat meat. I think that would continue for quite a while.
Do you think we evolved to drive cars and pump toxic chemicals into the atmosphere? Do you think we evolved to pour concrete over vast areas of land? The issue is this:
Why is it okay to kill animals for selfish convenience, but abortion for selfish convenience is not okay?
How do you reconcile this inconsistency?
Beans are also a natural source of protein. Are they off limits too?
I thought you said non-meat protien was difficult to obtain?
The issue isn’t about protien, which you’re well aware. It’s about killing animals for your convenience.
It’s ability to feel shouldn’t be related to the ethics of killing it, similar to how it’s not okay to kill people in comas that won’t be able to feel it.
So what’s the justification for killing animals who CAN feel?
PIP, definitely agreed – prevention is better than abortion in my book. Amazing to think how it would be were there no unwanted pregnancies. Be a lot less arguing, anyway.
On the person in the coma, what if it was a sure thing that there never would be any waking up? A that point it seems like a waste to continue the life by medical means. My opinion.
With abortion there indeed is a certain disrespect or lesser respect for those unborn human lives, at least in comparison to the respect for the woman. I think you see “inherent” positive value to life, while I see it as in the eye of the beholder, so we’re not gonna be on the same page there. I would mention a case like Erin’s, where an abortion was had, it being the best thing to do, and it’s not like she “doesn’t respect human life.” Also don’t think it was particularly hard on her, same as for most women.
Universal health care; ensuring that having kids wouldn’t hurt a career – these things sound good, at least on the surface, but I don’t know – there are the questions of costs, the human failings in the administration of such, and the extent to which they are counter-productive, overall.
Doug
“The methods in which you are advocating it to be ‘grown’ and ‘harvested’ in (by slaughtering innocent beasts) is not ‘natural’.”
I want them to be raised naturally as possible.
“My pro-life or pro-choice stance doesn’t change the validity of my statements. Address the argument, not the person, thanks.”
Of course it does. If you are going to accuse us of being inconsistent you should be able to stand up to your own arguments. Quit avoiding the question. I guess you don’t have to answer, but I can take a big guess.
“Do you think we evolved to drive cars and pump toxic chemicals into the atmosphere? Do you think we evolved to pour concrete over vast areas of land? ”
Not entirely genetically, through cultural memes we have developed these things, but hopefully with the same kind of technology we can take better care of things and hopefully undo some of the damage from the past.
“Why is it okay to kill animals for selfish convenience, but abortion for selfish convenience is not okay?
How do you reconcile this inconsistency?”
Because I don’t consider humans and animals to be the exact same thing. Humans should respect the earth and its inhabitants, so I think humane treatment should be standard. But we have been eating animals for food for a long time because it was part of our natural evolution. How many times should I say this?
Do you consider it consistent to believe it is wrong to slaughter different animals but not humans? Are you vegan? Just curious about that last question.
“I thought you said non-meat protien was difficult to obtain?”
It’s not difficult to obtain, at least not things like beans, but things like protein and vitamins found in meat have to be balanced by other means. I didn’t cite that as a primary reason as to why we should keep eating meat (or at least I didn’t mean to, it was meant as kind of a side comment), but just to say that it is a nutritious part of the diet. My dad is a vegetarian and he has to take a lot of vitamins and he calculates the nutrients to make sure they equate. Many vitamins found naturally in food absorb better than supplements. Just sayin.
Do you consider the entirety of human civilization to be horrific for eating meat? Wow, we are a horrific species. So are the lions, for that matter. And the cheetahs.
“It’s about killing animals for your convenience.”
It has become part of our human diet. If you want to go on the convenience tangent, why don’t we go for the reason you are using the computer, writing on paper, talking on a cell phone? Shopping at large corporations? These are made through deforestation and manipulation of the environment for ‘convenience.’ For those who choose not to eat it, more power to ya. I’d just rather the animals be treated more humanely. But in the same vein, if convenience is a factor maybe you should go amish, or something.
But really, I’m not against abortion because it’s ‘convenient’ I am against abortion because it’s killing a person. Another human being. Because animals were a part of our natural prey from the beginning, I don’t consider meat to be inherently bad. But I consider killing humans to be inherently bad. I hope you do, too.
But why don’t you answer a question. I keep answering your questions like a good girl, I think you can answer some from me, just to be fair. What plans do you have for criminalizing meat?
“what if it was a sure thing that there never would be any waking up? A that point it seems like a waste to continue the life by medical means. My opinion.”
Well, maybe I should have been more specific. Coma being different from brain death. Although brain death is sometimes referred to as a permanent coma. But you get the idea right? Because someone can’t feel doesn’t mean its okay to hurt them. Because someone is not conscious doesn’t mean its okay to hurt them.
“Also don’t think it was particularly hard on her, same as for most women.”
I don’t want to speak for anybody. I think abortion IS hard because women are put in positions where they have to choose between a career and a child. They feel pressured into killing the child, which can be difficult to cope with. There are some people who feel relief, it is true, but I think in the long run it’s about not regarding the fetus as a person that is a disrespect for human life. The women feel relief because they don’t consider it to be anything. The ideas leading to that type of cultural attitude lead to things like involving doctors in the death penalty and people seeing death as the answer to suffering. So I am not blaming women, I’m blaming ideas. Is that clear? Maybe its clear as mud, this is a complicated issue, but I hope I put it in good terms for you.
“Universal health care; ensuring that having kids wouldn’t hurt a career – these things sound good, at least on the surface, but I don’t know – there are the questions of costs, the human failings in the administration of such, and the extent to which they are counter-productive, overall.”
Actually universal health care decreases health care spending considerably.
Our society is litigious but I hope that when a discrimination case goes before a court they will see its merit.
Also, more education of people leads to a better economy. I can’t imagine more people being poor as a good solution. It’s in investment.
ahh gots to study evolution test tomorrow! This site is so darn addictive.
Actually universal health care decreases health care spending considerably. Our society is litigious but I hope that when a discrimination case goes before a court they will see its merit. Also, more education of people leads to a better economy. I can’t imagine more people being poor as a good solution. It’s in investment.
PIP, study on, and if you get time in the next few days – I would hope the everybody being covered would mean the cost going down…but still sounds too good to be true to me.
Yeah (sigh) we are so litigious…good grief. It’s just out of hand IMO.
I do think that education leads to a better economy, overall, but there would be a point of diminishing returns, i.e. it’s not like it’s worth it, economically, to get that one last guy who’s holding out, doesn’t want to be educated, etc.
I’ve seen the “No child left behind” program be nothing like what it’s supposed to achieve; really more a pain and a discouragement for teachers. Idealism is fine, but it’s tough to put in practice sometimes, and when the gov’t handles it then you bet I’m pessimistic.
Doug
I want them to be raised naturally as possible.
I’m pleased to hear that. However, there is nothing natural about enclosing animals by fences or walls to be eventually slaughtered. Would you be for undoing the genetic manipulation we have done to these animals and returning them to the wild?
Of course it does. If you are going to accuse us of being inconsistent you should be able to stand up to your own arguments. Quit avoiding the question. I guess you don’t have to answer, but I can take a big guess.
Uh, no. I could be a madwoman in an institute who thinks purple fairies control the world. It wouldn’t change the fact that what I have written is a valid argument. Address the argument, not the person. You’re just itching for an offensive on whichever stance I hold to detract from the issues at hand.
Not entirely genetically, through cultural memes we have developed these things, but hopefully with the same kind of technology we can take better care of things and hopefully undo some of the damage from the past.
I also hope we can eventually reverse the massive damage done to this planet. In all honesty though, I’m predicting our race won’t last long enough to produce fixes for the damage wrought.
Because I don’t consider humans and animals to be the exact same thing. Humans should respect the earth and its inhabitants, so I think humane treatment should be standard. But we have been eating animals for food for a long time because it was part of our natural evolution. How many times should I say this?
Do you consider it consistent to believe it is wrong to slaughter different animals but not humans? Are you vegan? Just curious about that last question.
I find it incredibly ironic that you want ‘humane’ treatment, yet you’re not willing to grant the same rights held by humans. Rather makes a mockery of the word ‘humane’.
Interstingly enough, our history and evolution is filled with humans killing other humans. Using your logic (that we’ve killed animals for eons) it’s therefore fine to kill other humans, because we’ve been doing it since we diverged into sapiens sapiens.
Clearly, killing other humans is part of our evolution. If we’re going to put a halt to killing humans, then why not do the same for every other species?
As to your last question; sorry, but I don’t give out information on my personal habits over the internet :-)
It’s not difficult to obtain, at least not things like beans, but things like protein and vitamins found in meat have to be balanced by other means. I didn’t cite that as a primary reason as to why we should keep eating meat (or at least I didn’t mean to, it was meant as kind of a side comment), but just to say that it is a nutritious part of the diet. My dad is a vegetarian and he has to take a lot of vitamins and he calculates the nutrients to make sure they equate. Many vitamins found naturally in food absorb better than supplements. Just sayin.
One of the largest, healthiest men I know is a vegan and he takes no supplements. Curious.
Do you consider the entirety of human civilization to be horrific for eating meat? Wow, we are a horrific species. So are the lions, for that matter. And the cheetahs.
Actually, I consider the human species to be horrific because of the mad rape we have done to this planet – be it the extinction of thousands of other species, the massive deforestation, the poisoning of the atmosphere, the pollution of our water-ways, the over-fishing (did you know that the blue-fin tuna is on the verge of extinction? Yet it is the primary ingredient in the highest quality sushi, so it continues to be killed to meet demand), etc, etc. We are a vile, despicable species. No other species has done so much to damage this planet.
Yet you say we deserve more rights than animals when WE are the most destructive beasts on Earth.
Imo, this planet would be better off without us. Either we fix the Earth up, or destroy ourselves before the damage is utterly irreversable.
It has become part of our human diet. If you want to go on the convenience tangent, why don’t we go for the reason you are using the computer, writing on paper, talking on a cell phone? Shopping at large corporations?
You’re repeating exactly what I said earlier.
These are made through deforestation and manipulation of the environment for ‘convenience.’ For those who choose not to eat it, more power to ya. I’d just rather the animals be treated more humanely. But in the same vein, if convenience is a factor maybe you should go amish, or something.
Again, how can you treat something ‘humanely’ if you won’t give it the same rights as a human?
The reality is that you want just enough done to salve your guilty conscience.
But really, I’m not against abortion because it’s ‘convenient’ I am against abortion because it’s killing a person. Another human being.
But wait a second, we’ve been killing humans since our species began. Just like we’ve been eating meat for roughly the same amount of time. You justify one by saying that it’s okay because we’ve always done it.
But the other is wrong for some reason.
Again, please address this inconsistency.
Because animals were a part of our natural prey from the beginning, I don’t consider meat to be inherently bad. But I consider killing humans to be inherently bad. I hope you do, too.
Again, the word ‘natural’ being bandied about. It’s meaningless when used in any discussion regarding human beings. It’s ‘natural’ to kill other humans because we’ve done it from the beginning. How can you consider it to be wrong when it is ‘natural’?
Again, reconcile this inconsistency.
But why don’t you answer a question. I keep answering your questions like a good girl, I think you can answer some from me, just to be fair. What plans do you have for criminalizing meat?
What has criminalising meat got to do with this? I’m discussing the inconsistency of eating meat while claiming that aborting is wrong.
Why is it okay to kill animals for selfish convenience, but abortion for selfish convenience is not okay?
How do you reconcile this inconsistency?
Caitlin, (I think that was your statement). I have to agree with you 100% here. For someone to say that they are pro-life is way to vague. Pro-human life, or (like me) anti-abortion are what I believe more appropriate terms. IMO, very rarely will you find an individual who is pro-life at it’s actual meaning. If this were true to the term, one would starve to death because plants are living things, also.
So, to answer your question, IMO, I feel that most people do not have to reconcile an inconsistency in regards to animal/human rights, because there is not an inconsistency there to begin with.
TIME FOR “COWS WITH GUNS!”
This is the best EVER-
(Turn it up LOUD!)
http://www.cowswithguns.com/cowmovie.html
FF,
I’ve gotta say, that was the best time ever to put up that link! WAY too funny! That was awesome, THANKS!
Caitlin, (I think that was your statement). I have to agree with you 100% here. For someone to say that they are pro-life is way to vague. Pro-human life, or (like me) anti-abortion are what I believe more appropriate terms. IMO, very rarely will you find an individual who is pro-life at it’s actual meaning. If this were true to the term, one would starve to death because plants are living things, also.
Thankyou. It’s nice to have that acknowledged. In some instances, I’d be tempted to label people ‘Pro-FEATAL-human-life’ – since they will exclude the rights and liberties of born people in favour of the unborn.
Interestingly enough, you can exists without eating anything living – ‘Fruitarians’ are those that believe only in eating the non-living produce that plants discard.
i.e. you can eat an apple and plant/scatter the seeds (since the seeds contain the potential for life). It’s entirely possible to live in this manner, though it’s a lot more difficult.
There is still, however, the inconsistency of why it is okay to kill animals, but not unborn humans. If killing animals is okay simply because we’ve ‘always done it’ then the same goes for killing humans – people have been killing each other since our species began.
Caitlin,
You make very excellent points. With the killing of animals, their meat can be used as food, their skin leather, etc. When an unborn baby is killed, it is disgarded.
I think that a person can benefit from the killing of animal but not an unborn, but the pro-aborts would say that the woman benefits when the unborn is killed.
Like I said, you make excellent points. I guess it just depends what side of the argument one is on.
“I’m pleased to hear that. However, there is nothing natural about enclosing animals by fences or walls to be eventually slaughtered.”
So you want us to start hunting old school?
“Would you be for undoing the genetic manipulation we have done to these animals and returning them to the wild?”
I guess if you don’t mind hunting, but it seems like the same idea to me.
“Uh, no. I could be a madwoman in an institute who thinks purple fairies control the world. It wouldn’t change the fact that what I have written is a valid argument. Address the argument, not the person. You’re just itching for an offensive on whichever stance I hold to detract from the issues at hand.”
No, I”m perfectly serious, and it is the issue at hand. You are addressing the people yourself. Calling us huge hypocrites \for saying it is inconsistent. If you are supporting an argument where it’s not cool to kill animals but okay to kill children I’d have to say by your argument it is equally hypocritical and inconsistent. Your constant deflections suggest the latter case, anyway.
“I also hope we can eventually reverse the massive damage done to this planet. In all honesty though, I’m predicting our race won’t last long enough to produce fixes for the damage wrought.”
Ah. Well, I hope it doesn’t come to that. Here’s hoping.
“I find it incredibly ironic that you want ‘humane’ treatment, yet you’re not willing to grant the same rights held by humans. Rather makes a mockery of the word ‘humane’.”
Hm…maybe you are getting the wrong idea, but I think humane is concerned with the alleviation of suffering. I don’t animals to suffer so I don’t want them injected with hormones, forced to stay in an enclosed area, and fed antibiotics. You are saying that because I make a distinction between humans and other animals I can’t be concerned with their well-being. I care very much for their well-being, but I also don’t think it is morally wrong to eat beef, pork, etc.
“Interstingly enough, our history and evolution is filled with humans killing other humans. Using your logic (that we’ve killed animals for eons) it’s therefore fine to kill other humans, because we’ve been doing it since we diverged into sapiens sapiens.”
Actually very few of our ancestors ate other humans. The point of my saying “we’ve done this for ages” is not only an appeal to the past. It is saying that eating prey had been necessary for survival and still provides nutrients and protein.
“Clearly, killing other humans is part of our evolution. If we’re going to put a halt to killing humans, then why not do the same for every other species?”
We have no reason to kill humans anymore. Still we kill certain animals for food-the ones we raise. I think protein and nutrients and the ability to do it without much harm to the animal is fine. You think it is NOT fine, so what are your proposals?
“As to your last question; sorry, but I don’t give out information on my personal habits over the internet :-)”
Haha yes I suppose veganism is really personal ;)
“One of the largest, healthiest men I know is a vegan and he takes no supplements. Curious.”
Very.
“Actually, I consider the human species to be horrific because of the mad rape we have done to this planet – be it the extinction of thousands of other species, the massive deforestation, the poisoning of the atmosphere, the pollution of our water-ways, the over-fishing (did you know that the blue-fin tuna is on the verge of extinction? Yet it is the primary ingredient in the highest quality sushi, so it continues to be killed to meet demand), etc, etc. We are a vile, despicable species. No other species has done so much to damage this planet.”
Wow that’s a pretty pessimistic view of things. So do you honestly have no qualms with humans killing humans? We are despicable, after all.
“Yet you say we deserve more rights than animals when WE are the most destructive beasts on Earth.”
….do you believe in human rights? This is why I ask for your position on this. You are not only asking for my opinions you are sharing yours. You seem to really hate the human race. It almost seems as if you value animal rights more than you do humans. Please correct me if I’m wrong on this.
“You’re repeating exactly what I said earlier.”
Ah, must not have seen that. Still, convenience is not the reason I am pro-life. I’m sure convenience is not the reason you are against killing animals for food.
“Again, how can you treat something ‘humanely’ if you won’t give it the same rights as a human?”
humane- the concern with the alleviation of suffering. Are you angry that the HUMANE society euthanizes animals? You should be!
“The reality is that you want just enough done to salve your guilty conscience.”
Really, that doesn’t make any sense. I just see things differently from you.
“But wait a second, we’ve been killing humans since our species began.”
And it was wrong.
“Just like we’ve been eating meat for roughly the same amount of time.”
Ah but the purpose was different. Do you know what “intent” means?
“You justify one by saying that it’s okay because we’ve always done it.”
Well it is a natural food, one that we ate for a long long time. Our bodies have adapted to its nutrients. I think that since it is still useful to us as a nutrient-rich food, it is okay.
Honestly we are not going to agree on this. I think that humans should not kill other humans. But I think that humans still prey on their surroundings at some level like every other animal and that some meat provides nutrients that aid our survival. I’m sorry this horrid horrid philosophy is different from yours. But…que sera sera.
“But the other is wrong for some reason.
Again, please address this inconsistency.”
…I have. You just refuse to see the difference. I’m a horrible person for eating meat, and thinking that it is delicious, nutritious, food. I think it is unethical though to torture the animal that we are about to eat because it just makes the animal suffer pointlessly. I think it is unethical that humans kill humans because (regardless of the obvious evolutionary reasons) it goes against everything we know and see as good. If this is an inconsistent position so would be the position that it is okay to kill small humans but not okay to eat animals.
“Again, the word ‘natural’ being bandied about. It’s meaningless when used in any discussion regarding human beings.”
Nothing can ever be considered natural? Really?
“It’s ‘natural’ to kill other humans because we’ve done it from the beginning. How can you consider it to be wrong when it is ‘natural’?”
What would you consider the ‘point’ of killing humans? I don’t think there is a valid reason to kill humans.
Some animals are used for food. Just like some plants are. I think any unreasonable treatment of these species is wrong. But we still gotta eat. That’s just my position. I don’t think it is terribly inconsistent. If you do, then, good for you. But you are obviously passionate about the subject, so I’m curious as to where you are taking your philosophy. Any active change that you are hoping to get done?
“Again, reconcile this inconsistency.”
I don’t believe there is an inconsistency. I think that humans have to live off of nature to survive. But eh, that’s just me.
“What has criminalising meat got to do with this? I’m discussing the inconsistency of eating meat while claiming that aborting is wrong.”
Well you think eating meat is wrong (obviously). And might be a vegan. We think killing people is wrong, so we want abortion (and a few other things) illegal. Wouldn’t you think that killing animals for food should be illegal too? How would you suggest we do this? I really am curious, some vegetarian friends of mine discussed this and we couldn’t come up with a real way to make it illegal.
“PIP, study on”
Hah, I couldn’t stay away for too long, I guess we’ll see how this turns out, I’ll let you know how I did later ;)
“and if you get time in the next few days – I would hope the everybody being covered would mean the cost going down…but still sounds too good to be true to me.”
Well you can look it up. Every other country spends a lot less than we do, per capita. I believe Canada’s system cut costs drastically.
“Yeah (sigh) we are so litigious…good grief. It’s just out of hand IMO.”
I agree. Boo on frivolous lawsuits!
“I do think that education leads to a better economy, overall, but there would be a point of diminishing returns, i.e. it’s not like it’s worth it, economically, to get that one last guy who’s holding out, doesn’t want to be educated, etc.”
Well we are not MAKING anyone get educated. I’m talking about people that are college students, going to be college students, etc, that want to abort because of career possibilities.
“I’ve seen the “No child left behind” program be nothing like what it’s supposed to achieve; really more a pain and a discouragement for teachers. Idealism is fine, but it’s tough to put in practice sometimes, and when the gov’t handles it then you bet I’m pessimistic.”
The national government doesn’t have to do all the handling. It can just require all public colleges have some sort of program.
Okay, I can’t stand it…I must say what every bone in my body is achin’ to say:
The earth was never created to be an eternal fixture in the universe. It
Anon I guess you are right. I’ll change my name.
Caitlin- I’m a vegetarian.
Thanks for your concerns for the hooved while those with opposable thumbs are slaughtered so you can continue having consequence-free sex.
Eating meat vs. killing one’s own children- which is worse?
All of the earth
I digress, Anon..I apologize for calling your comment ridiculous.
I would just like to know why you take the Bible in such a literal sense. Some parts are yes, but the parts about the “Rapture,” not so much.
Elizabeth,
From my experience protestants go more towards to a literal interpretation of Revelation than Catholics do.
That’s true…and I’m Catholic lol.
Let’s all pray for everyone affected by the shootings at NIU today.
I still haven’t heard from my friend Anna that goes there :/
Aww elizabeth, that is so awful. These things are really tragic. After virginia tech I had nightmares for like, a week. I couldn’t concentrate. It’s hard to believe someone would do something like that :/
I’ll be praying for everyone!
I just feel like I could scream when things like this happen.
Why Why Why are people not even safe to go to school and learn?
I can’t understand. I.really.just.can’t.
I know SO many people who go there…I don’t know if I could go back to school if that happened where I went. It’s just so traumatizing.
Yeah, sitting and learning the same room you saw people die in…I can’t even imagine.
Caitlin- I’m a vegetarian.
Thanks for your concerns for the hooved while those with opposable thumbs are slaughtered so you can continue having consequence-free sex.
Eating meat vs. killing one’s own children- which is worse?
‘Eating meat’ is an evasive statement. How about “Killing innocent, dumb bovines or ovines with no sin or guilt, so that you can pleasure your tastebuds.”
FFS, at least women abort for a decent reason, others are just allowing slaughter in the name of nice tasting food.
PEOPLE ARE KILLING JUST TO BE HAPPY.
How is that different to abortion?
I hope people on here feel extremely guilty next time they tuck into any meat product.
We do not need to kill animals. Yet we continue to do so. Humans are selfish pieces of crap. No other animal behaves the we do.
Caitlin,
You said: “Perhaps you could address the inconsistency of saying one form of convenience is okay and the other is not.”
Isn’t that exactly what you are doing? You imply that it is wrong to kill animals for “convenience,” yet you support the killing of human beings for “convenience.”
P.S.
I lol at how concernedparent owned you on prolifeamerica.com…
FFS, at least women abort for a decent reason,
And what is a decent reason for killing one’s own child, Caitlin? Would you oppose abortion is we ate our own young like hamsters because the “pleasure our tastebuds?” So it’s not the killing you oppose but the motive. Truly, I find nutrition/taste a better motive than irresponsibility and selfishness, why women abort.
PEOPLE ARE KILLING JUST TO BE HAPPY.
Yet, people killing a chicken to be happy is a abhorrent evil, while people killing their own baby to be happy is an empowering choice?
Caitlin, let’s take your statement: “We do not need to kill animals. Yet we continue to do so. Humans are selfish pieces of crap. No other animal behaves the we do.” and make one small change:
“We do not need to kill our own unborn babies. Yet we continue to do so. Humans are selfish pieces of crap. No other animal behaves the we do.”
I would just like to know why you take the Bible in such a literal sense. Some parts are yes, but the parts about the “Rapture,” not so much.
First off, rapture isn’t real. Christ only comes back once. This :Left Behind” non-sense is not a literal interpretation of the Bible, but a stretch made by some protestants to beleive they’re going to be spared the literal tribulation- they won’t.
Secondly, the end times prophecy is literal. There will be disasters, famine and other judgements. All the more reason to walk closely with God, so at the end of it all, you’ll be in Heaven rather than in Hell.
“We do not need to kill our own unborn babies. Yet we continue to do so. Humans are selfish pieces of crap. No other animal behaves the we do.”
Posted by: Jacqueline at February 15, 2008 6:23 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Animals EAT their newborns ALL THE TIME.
In bad times, many species resorb their unborn.
I love the way no two Christians can decide what the Bible is actually saying.
Because my opinion is as valid as anyone else’s on this board, I’ve decided that only this part is true:
Proverbs: 31 6-7
Give beer to those who are perishing,
wine to those who are in anguish;
7 let them drink and forget their poverty
and remember their misery no more.
(I’ve always been a fine hostess…)
“I hope people on here feel extremely guilty next time they tuck into any meat product.”
Last night I had chicken with beans, onions, and tomatoes wrapped in lettuce.
YUM. It was delicious. No post-meat-syndrome here.
LOL FF, that’s great.
No post-meat-syndrome here.
lol pip, I love you.
First off, rapture isn’t real. Christ only comes back once. This :Left Behind” non-sense is not a literal interpretation of the Bible, but a stretch made by some protestants to beleive they’re going to be spared the literal tribulation- they won’t.
I agree. Christ will come back only once. The rapture isn’t Christ coming back, it’s Christ “pulling” his church to meet Him in “the clouds”. We will be spared the literal tribulation. That’s the whole point of the rapture, so God can pour out His wrath on the evil of this world. He cannot do that if believers are here. He wouldn’t pour out His wrath on believers (His church). That would be unjust, and God is not unjust.
I guess it just depends what side of the argument one is on.
High-Five, Anonymous! Now you’re talkin’….