Why I don't think it's a contradiction to be pro-choice as well as vegan

This discussion was started in the thread Is the life of the mother or father more important than a BABY??, which itself started as a debate on the comments page of the Vegetarian/Vegan Atheists group. In the former discussion, bringing in veganism to the abortion debate was considered to be broadening the discussion a bit too far and that a new discussion should be added. So, here it is.

I'm not saying anything that I hadn't said before, I don't think - first, while there aren't any tangible benefits to killing animals in terms of diet (see position paper by the ADA, as one example), the environment (see this report by the FAO - again, there's more, but I'm too lay to dig up additional resources right now), or clothing (I'm not supplying a link for this :P), there are many obvious adverse consequences to a woman who carries a child to term, including but not limited to physical pain, emotional complications, and financial losses.

Secondly, while many animals probably don't have the highly-developed sense of self-identity that human beings do, we still have reason to believe that they have some sense of self. For instance, an animal can tell the difference between an action taken by itself and another animal, can recognize friendly from non-friendly individuals, can discern between their own trail markings, songs and the like from those of others, and so on. These various facets of identity are generally recognized, I believe, to not develop in human beings until between two and eighteen months after birth. As a result, it seems reasonable to conclude that the death of a born animal is a greater loss of life than a fetus's, if such a thing can be measured.

As a result, I don't see any inherent contradiction in being pro-choice as well as vegan at the same time.

Tags: abortion, animal_rights, pro-choice, right_to_life, vegan, veganism, vegetarian

Views: 51

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

How do you figure they are fully functioning Homo Sapiens when they cant even breathe, eat or excrete waste yet. Tell me some stories of babies that self contain before 20 weeks outside of the belly of another living being.
How do you figure they are fully functioning Homo Sapiens when they cant even breathe, eat or excrete waste yet.

Biology/Embryology & I never said they were babies.
Simon - I hope you don't mind if I start a new reply thread, it's getting a bit taxing to scroll aaaall the way back up each time I get a quote to copy and paste :P

I think I'm understanding your position a bit better. I still, however, disagree with what you've said about the amorality of murder - it's true that once the person's dead, they don't care any more, but to me that's a bit too much like arguing that if I punch someone it ceases to be wrong once their pain subsides. The fact that the person murdered has no further desires one way or another doesn't change the historical fact of the wrong committed. Another example might be if I hurt someone and they later forgive me - all this means is that I won't be punished, not that the act I committed changed from immoral to not immoral because they're no longer angry.

So, as far as I'm concerned there isn't any need to refer to abstract desires or existential issues - and I'd like to remind you that I haven't seen you make a compelling argument that the rights of the fetus override the rights of the mother. Even if you established the significance of an existential right-to-life, it wouldn't necessarily justify your anti-abortion stance.
Simon - I hope you don't mind if I start a new reply thread, it's getting a bit taxing to scroll aaaall the way back up each time I get a quote to copy and paste :P

NP

I think I'm understanding your position a bit better. I still, however, disagree with what you've said about the amorality of murder –

Where did I say that?


it's true that once the person's dead, they don't care any more, but to me that's a bit too much like arguing that if I punch someone it ceases to be wrong once their pain subsides. The fact that the person murdered has no further desires one way or another doesn't change the historical fact of the wrong committed. Another example might be if I hurt someone and they later forgive me - all this means is that I won't be punished, not that the act I committed changed from immoral to not immoral because they're no longer angry.


So, as far as I'm concerned there isn't any need to refer to abstract desires or existential issues - and I'd like to remind you that I haven't seen you make a compelling argument that the rights of the fetus override the rights of the mother. Even if you established the significance of an existential right-to-life, it wouldn't necessarily justify your anti-abortion stance.

I can move onto this, now if you like though I wasn’t sure I had your view clarified with your stance.

Basically if it doesn’t cost you anything and it doesn’t hurt/counteracts the other parties desire or lack of, it’s Ok? & to save a life it necessarily must be conscious. Given what I’ve said about desires and rights that still doesn’t add up.
So, as far as I'm concerned there isn't any need to refer to abstract desires or existential issues - and I'd like to remind you that I haven't seen you make a compelling argument that the rights of the fetus override the rights of the mother. Even if you established the significance of an existential right-to-life, it wouldn't necessarily justify your anti-abortion stance.

Hi Aaron again sorry for the delay.

OK first as I've tried to point out if an infant is given personhood rights but isn't a cogntive person and we are looking for underlying similarities and not arbitrary preferences, then prima facie a foetus should have a personhood right to life as well. That's why I've questioned your argument based on sentience, sentience just doesn't provide that justification.

But we generally have bodily autonomy and aren't morally required to give bllod or organs even to our children.

But in general we aren't allowed to harm or make worse off another entity with equal moral rights, which I would argue, if its given to an infant it should also be give to 'most' foetuses.

Now if indeed we give equal moral rights to a foetus where does that leave us.? Shouldn't a parent jus like a born child be able to opt out of give blood or organs?

No. Why? Because in general when we harm or make dependent an entity with equal moral rights we have wronged it and owe it compensation. Since the only practical compensation is for it to stay where it is, that is the only applicable compensation in this case.

But should this overcome our basic bodily autonomy?

I and others don't think so. If a parent caused through harm or negligence their child to get a disease and need a organ transplant- they being the only match-, enforcing this would be consistent with the above compensation principle.

Secondly we have a accepted intuitive moral principle that a parent is responsible for the care of their child/offspring . Why? They created this entity and becaus it has equal moral rights and it is dependent on them for its survival. If this is so for an infant which is an offspring it should be for a foetus which is also a offspring.

Also since it is an innocent party wrong by another in a case where both their live are at risk since we prioritize innocent parties in other cases we should here as well.

So that is it, basically when a party has equal moral rights and it is wronged and made dependent, it isn't inconsistent to override the rights of the wrongdoer when their is no other way to compensate the wronged party.

Notice in rape this isn't the case as the woman is also a innocent party and since she has no obligation to donate blood or organs to anothr party she can have an abortion esp so as a right of self defence.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service