Can someone be pro-life and still eat meat?

Nope, not in my opinion. If someone claims the label "Pro-life" and they still eat meat, there is a massive disconnect there imnho.

A friend of mine, I'll call her "Debbie" (not her real name), is very pro-life. She marches in the demonstrations, gives money, pickets abortion centers, and attends her Catholic church several times a week. She even helps organize dinners and fundraisers.

But at all of these dinners they serve meat! I'm a vegan, so I discuss this with her and it's usually the same answer: Animals don't have souls.

That's the reasoning. But I then say, well okay, but aren't they alive? That usually gets her angry. And I do the same with other pro-lifers I meet, when they tell me they are pro-life I almost always say "Congratulations! How long have you been a vegetarian?" and I either get a blank expression or that same discussion ensues ("Animals don't have souls" "But aren't they alive?").

These social activists have every right to call themselves anti-abortion. But being pro-life without going vegetarian (let alone the capital punishment argument) doesn't compute in my universe of semantics and reality.

reply to post by Aleister


no offense but this is the most ridiculous thing ive ever heard...

Take Native Americans for example and many other native people across the world....

They hold life to a whole nother standard then most people do, its the backbone of their whole belief system, including the life of the animals they eat. I would call them more pro life then any activist with an agenda.

They pray and give thanks before and after they kill their game.....

I think you have over thought the issue, thats some very very shaky ground your trying to launch this idea from. But I do appreciate your thoughts and perspective on the issue...

Keep up the thought provoking stuff!

reply to post by Aleister


"Cognitive Dissonance". And yes, animals have souls. They have emotions, too. Some people are just so disconnected from the fact that we are a part of the biosystem on this planet, dependent on each other, that it astounds me.

S/F

Why does she get angry?

reply to post by ManBehindTheMask


Overthought the issue? It's the term they use, "Pro-life". How clearer can that be? As for thanking your food for dying for you, ask the animal if it's okay with that ("Sure, no problem," says the deer).

I know it is one of those issues and questions which have two sides, and each side totally believes in their viewpoint. Granted "Debbie" is a loving and concerned activist when it comes to her issue of abortion. This is just a point of caring on my part (She won't read this, so I can say that she is very overweight and imnho may be harming herself with her eating habits, and I hate to see that happen so using the pro-life angle is one way of approaching the subject without getting a frying pan tossed in my direction).

reply to post by wildtimes


She and others probably get angry because they know that animals are alive, and knows I know that she knows it, and she just keeps eating meat because she likes it (been there, loved that). So there is very little to discuss, which is usually where anger emerges (backed into a corner syndrome maybe?).

I have to assume then,that entertaining any idea that plants have a consciousness,an awareness, that could be considered akin to a soul, also does not compute in your reality of the world? Nature is what it is,and we are apart of nature on this planet. That despite your holier than thou attitude.

I feel like apples and oranges are being compared here.

A better question is can you be pro-abortion and against the death penalty? Now that at least is a human Vs human question.

So, should pro-life people then be all about stopping predators from predating?

Aleister
Nope, not in my opinion. If someone claims the label "Pro-life" and they still eat meat, there is a massive disconnect there imnho.

A friend of mine, I'll call her "Debbie" (not her real name), is very pro-life. She marches in the demonstrations, gives money, pickets abortion centers, and attends her Catholic church several times a week. She even helps organize dinners and fundraisers.

But at all of these dinners they serve meat! I'm a vegan, so I discuss this with her and it's usually the same answer:

That's the reasoning. But I then say, well okay, but aren't they alive? That usually gets her angry. And I do the same with other pro-lifers I meet, when they tell me they are pro-life I almost always say "Congratulations! How long have you been a vegetarian?" and I either get a blank expression or that same discussion ensues ("Animals don't have souls" "But aren't they alive?").

These social activists have every right to call themselves anti-abortion. But being pro-life without going vegetarian (let alone the capital punishment argument) doesn't compute in my universe of semantics and reality.

edit on 26-1-2014 by Aleister because: (no reason given)

Christians have souls, and animals dont??? Oh the irony! I find pro life campaigners tiresome at best, and dangerous, very dangerous at worst.That they eat meat is hardly surprising though is it?I mean its all in the bible isnt it?

Aleister
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask

 

??? Overthought the issue? It's the term they use, "Pro-life". How clearer can that be? As for thanking your food for dying for you, ask the animal if it's okay with that ("Sure, no problem," says the deer).

I would venture to guess the wisdom of the ages of Native peoples probably has a lot more thought and insight into the symbiosis of man and beast on mother earth then you or I do....

The difference is arrogance and idealism doesnt come into play, harmony does.....

Id place my bets on them over you being offended any day....sorry bud...

Its the cycle of life, all animals, including the human animal hunt and eat.

Shall we tell the Lion in Africa it must stop doing so and start hunting turnups instead?

LoL I am all for the concern for your friend as well, but I doubt this is a good way to try to get her to change her eating habits, perhaps get her to join a gym with you first instead?

Have a good day my friend!

reply to post by Aleister


I really don't care. It's nature. A shark will just eat me if I jumped into the ocean at the wrong time. Eat and try not to be eaten. That is the way of life. You have to kill plants in order to eat vegetables and some fruits. Even fruits from trees, you must rip them off (killing them). Even rice is a living thing coming from a plant.

reply to post by Montjeu


Hi, and if nothing else this thread has caused you to sign up as a member. Welcome to ATS! If you've lurked here you will now be able to see less ads, to see the avatars, and all the good stuff. Please share things you know which you think others would enjoy hearing and ask any question you've always wondered about.

As for in the bible, I usually just point to the first thing God said to man in Genesis (Genesis 1:29, it's on the first page!) paraphrasing, "Eat seeds and seed pods (fruit), those are your food".

arpgme
reply to post by Aleister

 

I really don't care. It's nature. A shark will just eat me if I jumped into the ocean at the wrong time. Eat and try not to be eaten. That is the way of life. You have to kill plants in order to eat vegetables and some fruits. Even fruits from trees, you must rip them off (killing them). Even rice is a living thing coming from a plant.

No, those are seeds and seed pods (fruit). And a shark won't be showing up on the pro-life picket line anytime soon.

AccessDenied
I have to assume then,that entertaining any idea that plants have a consciousness,an awareness, that could be considered akin to a soul, also does not compute in your reality of the world? Nature is what it is,and we are apart of nature on this planet. That despite your holier than thou attitude.

Of course plants are alive, totally computes. I eat seeds and fruit, which cover a very wide swath of healthy food (rice, all other grains, beans, etc.). For that very reason I don't eat carrots, which are the entire plant and not just the seed.

I'm asking this because of the terminology itself, Pro-life versus anti-abortion. When someone says they are pro-life they open themselves up to this question, and to the question of the death penalty.

reply to post by Aleister


Thankyou......i will try and be a good poster!

All animal life on this planet must consume other life in order to perpetuate their own. Because of this most animals (humans included) have a decided preference toward making decisions that favor their own species. Again, in part because of the biological paradigm of the former, this can be at the cost of other species. For human beings, this often falls into those categories that we determine moral or not. In the end, it is subjective, and often little more than a justification. Which leads me too...

Aleister


But at all of these dinners they serve meat! I'm a vegan, so I discuss this with her and it's usually the same answer: Animals don't have souls.]

All I see here are is one person trying to out holier-than-thou the other. In short, Preachy, meet Preachier.

Aleister
These social activists have every right to call themselves anti-abortion. But being pro-life without going vegetarian (let alone the capital punishment argument) doesn't compute in my universe of semantics and reality.

edit on 26-1-2014 by Aleister because: (no reason given)

Arguments built upon semantics alone are weak ones, and easily discarded. Language is not reality, it is simply an abstraction that is an attempt to communicate an understanding of reality.

However, if you were to simply define which stance is "more moral" at the end of the day taking a stance that all life is sacred is more moral. Ironically, if you take a moral stance to its inevitable conclusion you will always run the risk of taking actions as a result of it that are decidedly immoral.

Leave your friend to her moral determinations and keep your own.

Personally, I disagree with both of you, because of the inherent risk of taking a rigid moral stance. Those kind of blinders make for cruelty that is not even aware of itself.

Ok, here's another question for you then. If the fireman who comes to save you is pro-life, whom does he look for to save first? You or the dogs? If he is saving people from the fire and he comes across the dog before he comes across you, should he pull the dog out? After all, it seems that you seem to be placing all life on the same pedestal as equivalent.

reply to post by redhorse


At the risk of appearing stupid, could you explain your last paragraph, as it has gone over my head?

reply to post by Aleister


For the larger part Pro-life as a movement has nothing to do with any actual concern for any life. If it did they would have a much more supportive social policy. The pro-life movement is a cleverly designed movement interested only in forcing people into what they view as proper sexual morality and nothing more.

ketsuko
Ok, here's another question for you then. If the fireman who comes to save you is pro-life, whom does he look for to save first? You or the dogs? If he is saving people from the fire and he comes across the dog before he comes across you, should he pull the dog out? After all, it seems that you seem to be placing all life on the same pedestal as equivalent.

The fireman should save the human first. At least that's why I'd do. Doesn't mean the fireman shouldn't save them both if the chance arises.