Liberals, Animal Rights, and Abortion

[kombu_kid]

I'd like some opinions on the rights of the unborn, when life officially begins as far as human rights is concerned, and refusal of the judicial system to make a concrete judgment as to this. A drunk driver who kills a pregnant woman could face a double murder charge, yet we talk about legalizing partial birth abortion. I don't get it; if a fetus could survive outside of it's mother at 6 months, how in the hell could that not be considered a living being that deserves to be protected?

See my post concerning animal rights and abortion in the Society/Books and the Arts/Books Promoting AW, AR, Vegetarianism, Veganism

[ja_Patriot]

I had the ideas in this post in another thread.

Here’s one way to look at all that hullabaloo on animal rights.

If AR activists discovered a situation where 3,000 animals (puppies, cubs, ponies, kittens etc..) were slaughtered every day because their owners found them unwanted and undesirable, how do think they, the activists would react? They'd probably go indignant with forth righteousness, totally ballistic and berserk.

Well, since Roe v Wade, guess how many human being babies have been aborted?

Over 40,000,000. In 35 years.

Over 3,000 babies a day.

Makes animal rights a humdrum issue, so much ado about nothing, doesn’t it?

When I read this the other day, it was one of those “Hey, I didn’t know that.” So I googled “Number Abortions Since Roe v Wade”. Some estimates were over 48 million.

That many? How? I’m not an activist of any kind, but it did make me think about this so-called “constitutional right of a woman to privacy”.

Any thoughts? Here’s one. With millions more people, the US economy would have had an adequate work force to prosper without the need for migrant workers.

Going back to animals, ironically, doesn't PETA kill over 85% of animals entrusted to its care?

Tell me I’m wrong.


#

[DougP]

:argh3: Another one of these threads :argh14:

[ja_Patriot]

I know. Fuggedaboutit.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Here’s one way to look at all that hullabaloo on animal rights.

If AR activists discovered a situation where 3,000 animals (puppies, cubs, ponies, kittens etc..) were slaughtered every day because their owners found them unwanted and undesirable, how doj [you] think they, the activists would react?

What are you talking about, Ja!? ARists already know there are quite many more than 3,000 animals (of all kinds) slaughtered everyday because their owners found them unwanted!! How many pounds for unwanted pets in each state and each country exist in the world, do you think?

Some simple math will show you your numbers are quite conservative as the reality of the situation that we are all well aware of.

Thousands of unwanted animals that were once pets are slaughtered each day. No discovering to it!

So, to your question, "How would[do] we react?":

We react by organizing into effective organizations to try and impact on that to lessen the numbers. We go before courts with well reasoned arguments. We go to the public with well reasoned arguments and appeal to their sympathies and sense of what is right, moral. We seek to impact their ethical view of how animals should be treated. We do all that through legislation and laws, education, outreach, campaigns etc...

Are Arists perfect? No. Do they make mistakes along the way? Sure. Do they win every single battle they pick? No. Do they win a lot of them, or enough of them to make small steps towards their goals at changing the status quo? Yes. Do governments, companies, and orgs come to the negotiation table to meet with their representatives? You bet they do!

Do they get results? Definitely.

That is how we react! Not with apathy or a defeatist attitude merely because the task facing us seems like an insurmountable and overwhelming one. We define what we want, make a plan, put it into action,put boots on the ground, and move towards achieving what we want.

I am quite surprised you even asked the question. Literature is replete with the way The Movement reacts with the killing of thousands of animals a day. You haven't taken the time to read any serious literature of the other side that is calling for a change in this status quo, have you? If you had, I don't think you would have asked such a naive question.

[Fonze]

Liberals and the far right are both hypocrites on certain things. My problem with libs though is they have no shame in their hypocricies.

[ja_Patriot]

TP

I was approaching this in terms of the value of life. How much to place in that of a human being as opposed to those of animals as an activist.

Your reply made me look up some numbers and obviously the fact is that there are billions of animals killed for the consumption and sustenance of 3 billion human beings.

That being said, how would you react to this statement:

“I’d rather have a billion more animals slaughtered than to have 12,000,000 human beings each year die of starvation; and a million more if it can solve genocide in Darfur.”

Regarding abortions, well, 40 million since RvW is a number in the “I’d never have guessed it was that high” category. I suppose AR activists wouldn’t be too concerned about that, per se.

___

I generally respond to these forum issues to put in a quick personal point of view and to maintain a dialogue and even to learn, especially with someone who’s as passionate and informed about the topic as you may be with animal rights.

So I’ll disregard that word “naïve” you offered (not for the first time). You know there are words which can kill a conversation and any further enthusiasm for an otherwise interesting dialogue, as the focus shifts to your callowness to most other matters and leads to derision. Take that out of your vocabulary!


#

[TheNoNamedOne]

...how would you react to this statement:

“I’d rather have a billion more animals slaughtered than to have 12,000,000 human beings each year die of starvation; and a million more if it can solve genocide in Darfur.”

Do you know what a false dichotomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy) is? It is one of the informal fallacies. You are proposing such with your question.

Regarding abortions, well, 40 million since RvW is a number in the “I’d never have guessed it was that high” category. I suppose AR activists wouldn’t be too concerned about that, per se.

The abortion issue cuts across the spectrum of ARists. You will find many who support pro choic and you will find many ARists who are also pro life. Those ARists who support The Rights View put forth by Tom Regan, often are pro-life.

Do you think all ARists should be campaigning against abortion? If so, do you fairly say that all pro lifers should also be campaigning for animal rights ? Quid pro quo, you know. Or are you against a symetrical relationship and application of recourses for those causes?

Personally, I think everyone should feel free without any guilt to fight for the cause of their choosing. If pro lifers are not winning enough of their battles like ARists are winning many of theirs, then perhaps the problem lies with pro lifers not being effective enough with their plans and tactics.

Do you want effective ARists to rescue them? Can't they do what they feel needs to be done on their own than having to resort to wanting all ARists come over to them? Pro lifers need to work harder at targeting the apathetic to their cause if they want more support.

___

So I’ll disregard that word “naïve” you offered (not for the first time). You know there are words which can kill a conversation and any further enthusiasm for an otherwise interesting dialogue, as the focus shifts to your callowness to most other matters and leads to derision. Take that out of your vocabulary!

The question was a naive question. I didn't call you naive, did I? Hey, at least I don't refer to you as a Republican right wing conservative nut case, or a Nazi, or a homo -- the latter terms directed at me here by some at times. Besides, don't you use the terms "lefty liberals" as a perjorative? That is how they come across to me.

Calling your question "naive" is no foul.

[DougP]

Do you know what a false dichotomy is? It is one of the informal fallacies. You are proposing such with your question.

I guess it depends on how you read it. I would think it more or less means he he is more sympathetic to the 12 mil humans dying of starvation each year and would rather have more animals slaughtered that could, well, feed the starving people. I don't think he was presenting a false dilemma here or asking you to choose between the two. But still even though you might consider it to be a false dichotomy he still may want to know how you would react to this statement. Or what do you think about the statement? Other than what kind of statement it is.

[P_chan]

Now I've now I heard you say that you want everyone in the world to become a vegatarian TP. Wouldn't that be a false dichotomy?

[TheNoNamedOne]

I guess it depends on how you read it. I would think it more or less means he he is more sympathetic to the 12 mil humans dying of starvation each year and would rather have more animals slaughtered that could, well, feed the starving people. I don't think he was presenting a false dilemma here or asking you to choose between the two.

It is a false dilemma, Doug, whether he was asking me or not, or merely directing it at him to proffer his own opinion of it. He has created a false dillemma because only two choices do not exist no matter whose opinion, one's own, or another's, is proffered from it.

But still even though you might consider it to be a false dichotomy he still may want to know how you would react to this statement. Or what do you think about the statement? Other than what kind of statement it is.

I understand what you are saying, Doug, however, answering false dillemmas is almost tentamont to accepting them. They are virtually just as loaded questions as: "Would you rather beat your wife 4 days a week or just 3 days a week?" Of course we know there are more choices available to us than this dumbed down question directed towards us, and if you answer from those two choices, you are playing the fool of a foolish question.

Fallacies have been listed, catagorized, and studied for a reason, don't you think? I think they are studied, listed, and labeled so that when they come up, the observant debator or participant to a discussion does not step on them like stepping on a land mine.

[Fonze]

So are you saying we shouldn't answer your threads if we don't believe them or see them as falacy?

[TheNoNamedOne]

So are you saying we shouldn't answer your threads if we don't believe them or see them as falacy?

I have always told people to feel free to not participate in my threads for whatever reason they wish. You are welcomed to stay out of them, Fonze.

Formal and informal fallacies are labeled and listed. If you think I am proffering one of them, then tell us which one and explain why what I have proffered meets that criteria. I don't mind and will answer to the point.

[DougP]

How is it exactly a false dilemma? Because its something that isn't happening or because its something that can't happen? Or is it just the way that the statement was written? I hope that it isn't just because of the semantics. It may not come down to needing to make a choice between the two but its still something that can happen.
http://japanupdate.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1347

[TheNoNamedOne]

Point in question from Ja:
“I’d rather have a billion more animals slaughtered than to have 12,000,000 human beings each year die of starvation; and a million more if it can solve genocide in Darfur.”

How is it exactly a false dilemma? Because its something that isn't happening or because its something that can't happen? Or is it just the way that the statement was written? I hope that it isn't just because of the semantics. It may not come down to needing to make a choice between the two but its still something that can happen.
http://japanupdate.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1347

It is not a false dichotomy/dilemma because it is not or cannot happen; it is a false dichotomy because there are not only two choices. Obviously a third choice of vegetarianism exists. When food aid is sent to these kinds of countries, we do not send them meat. Likewise agriculture has the third choice of choosing a vegetarian option to feed its starving people.

Now, ask me which I would rather have with the 3rd choice in there, noting that food aid sent to countries to keep those persons from starving is based on rice and grains.

The assertion that there is no alternative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy#There_is_no_alternative) is an example of the false dichotomy taken to its ultimate extreme, in which the alternatives are reduced to one, the proposal of the speaker. Of course the speaker does not believe there are no alternatives othewise he would not bother to argue the point; rather he opposes the alternatives and seeks to dismiss them by denying their existence.

[ja_Patriot]

TP,

First, let’s put a distinction between a vegetarian, who is an eater of fruits and vegetables; someone who eats no meat or fish or (some) animal products, -

And an animal rights activist – one who hallucinates in the assignment to animals of the basic right to be treated with respect and that people should abolish the breeding of animals for food, scientific experimentation, and commercial hunting.

Many good people are vegetarians for varied reasons, including some friends and relatives. Animal rights activist or ARists as you call yourselves are few and far between, thank God.

Then, a simple proposition about getting food for people in dire need:

---
JA: - ...how would you react to this statement: “I’d rather have a billion more animals slaughtered than to have 12,000,000 human beings die of starvation each year; and a million more if it can solve the genocide in Darfur.”

TP: - Do you know what a false dichotomy is? It is one of the informal fallacies. You are proposing such with your question.

---

Rhetorical as expected. A real life question will have no answer in your dreary, loony world, would it?

After all, saving the lives of human beings starving to death by producing food, may infringe on the right of cattle, swine or fish, for example, not to have themselves cooked in your pathetic version of reality, right?

Or the answer could be somewhere in an obscure white paper, but unfortunately so far over the head of such a naive nincompoop such as your pretentious self.

Then:

---
TP: - “…Or are you against a symmetrical relationship and application of recourses for those causes?”
---

Is this even English? Who are you trying to impress with this paltry attempt to pass yourself off as a sauvant, - a learned “prosecutor”. Hint: If you have to drop a name, pick someone mainstream who at least would validate your arguments and not another no-name co-lunatic.

And:

---
TP: - “Personally, I think everyone should feel free without any guilt to fight for the cause of their choosing. If pro lifers are not winning enough of their battles like ARists are winning many of theirs, then perhaps the problem lies with pro lifers not being effective enough with their plans and tactics. Do you want effective ARists to rescue them? ...”
---

Congratulations! You’ve hit the jackpot, TP! You've just reached the epitome of naiveté and abject stupidity. Have you ever heard of the names Roberts and Alito? Get out of your crab hole.

Just in case you still haven’t gotten it, TP, just FYI, ARists as you call yourselves, are commonly regarded as a bunch of cantankerous lunatics, intrinsically egoistic, a throwback to the psychedelic and oh-so-passé hippie days, and oftentimes highly suspect as effeminate and gay. Sorry if I may offend any other reader in this forum, but this particular poster thinks using pejorative words lends legitimacy to his fallacies. So I’m just giving it back in kind.

DougP was right. Not another stupid thread like this.

Best for me to just let you rattle on. You can say what you think you need to defend your little fetish and save your suspect manhood.

Homo. Nazi. Naïve. These are words you seem to be comfortable with in your posts and discussions, you sad-sack of a human being. In case you think it’s name calling, sad-sack is an adjective, similar to naïve except specially flavored with a pound of idiocy, just for you.)


#

[TheNoNamedOne]

lol@ja above:

If I thought idiot were a synonym for nincompoop, I would call you one -- but since it is not, I will be satisfied with your choice of words, you nincompoop sad sac!

lol.

[dk]

lol@ja above:

If I thought idiot were a synonym for nincompoop, I would call you one -- but since it is not, I will be satisfied with your choice of words, you nincompoop sad sac!

lol.
In leetspeak or whatever, I'd say you got PWN3D in his last post. ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO HIM.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Not at all, dk. He addressed nothing concerning his false dichotomy. He basically went on a little rant about ARists. Don't be a nincompoop yourself, sad sac.

lol. <elbow>

[dk]

Sorry, I had you on ignore. What? :p

[TheNoNamedOne]

Sorry, I had you on ignore. What? :p

Funny.

But since you have me back now to read:

Don't be a nincompoop yourself, sad sac.

[dk]

Sorry, I've got pottymouth vocabulary filtered out. All I see is **********, *** ***.

[Fonze]

like i posted earlier libs have no shame in their hypocricy.

[dk]

How do you have shame in your hypocrisy? And what's the difference? Both conservatives and liberals are hypocrites from time to time. And what's with generalizations? Last I checked, there was a whole lot of liberals and a whole lot of conservatives and a whole lot of other people who straddled the line.

[Fonze]

The way I see shame in your hypocricy is like with these conservative "family value " guys who have sex with prostitutes or Mark Foley or that pastor that was having gay sex and doing meth. When they were exposed for their hypocricy they hid in shame and tried to run.


Now when Liberals do this they have no shame. Lear jet liberals like Al Gore or hollywood libs even John edwards. They tell us fly commercial, buy small house don't drive big vehicles yet they all do exactly the opposite. They own multiple houses, fly private jets and pollute the roads from gig to gig not carpooling. This with "NO SHAME" in their hypocricies.


Another Example is the liberal enviromental like Ted Kennedy who wants renewable energy for everyone but opposes wind power in his own backyard with NO SHAME in his hypocricies. The Dems want to lower the "rich" from what it is right now to $97,000 a year. Meaning you will get taxed more yet these same liberals that want a socialist country have their money in trust funds that can't be touched.

[Fonze]

This is another beatiful example of liberal hypocricy. Even if your a liberal watch especially from minute 5 on.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2y0nV5l2XI

[dk]

Gore is a fruit. I'm super cerial.

That was a waste of time. The whole video was about Gore. You made a pretty big generalization. Kind of like I am by saying all conservatives have a stick up their @$$. The difference is I don't buy into what I just said.

[Fonze]

OK sorry about generalizing I take it back.
What do you mean you don't buy into what I just said.

[Fonze]

More hypocricy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1gcaPlwbJ0

[dk]

OK sorry about generalizing I take it back.
What do you mean you don't buy into what I just said.
I said I don't buy into what I just said. Me. I. I don't believe what I said about all conservatives having a stick up their @$$. You seem to believe what you yourself said about liberals being hypocrites. I pointed out that both sides have their hypocrites. That's the only point I'm arguing.

[Fonze]

I also never denied both sides have them.