It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can someone be pro-life and still eat meat?

page: 2
13
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 10:03 AM
link   

KeliOnyx
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.

Oooh, i like that!




posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 10:09 AM
link   

redhorse


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.


Good point, that I discuss the pro-life dinners that serve meat with her to out-holy her, and I concede that that is part of it. Gave you a star. Yet it may also be accurate that serving meat at a pro-life dinner is a bit discordant.



posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Aleister
 


I'm pro life, and I eat meat.

How can I do this? It's simple, I hold a human life as something which deserves higher regard than an animal. Almost all of us do. Even most vegans do this as well, though there are always exceptions. How many times have you ever had a bug get smashed across the windshield and bounce off. Do you get out and offer it first aide? Have you ever had a squirrel or rabbit run out and meet the undercarriage of your car? Did you offer it first aide or mourn it's loss? Some folks probably have, but most don't; I don't.

Replace the same scenarios with a small child. The results would be vastly different, unless the person is a completely heartless thing. Even a pro choice person would step out and see if the kid is alright. If they had killed the child, I'm sure there would be some remorse.

Because humans can and do eat meat, we view most of the ones as we consume as food rather than friends because of the emotional impact it would have to take their life. Though, I'm not opposed to having them as friends before food, because I do believe life is sacred. Killing anything, even a food animal should never be something we take lightly. It's no different than a plant we harvest for food. We end it's life so we can survive, should we not respect them too? Without getting super deep, I just want to be clear; I believe all life is sacred, especially that of a child whether born or unborn. I even believe our food animals need to be cherished because they are alive. There is a difference though, we eat the animals not our children.

As far as claiming that eating meat and being pro life is essentially being hypocritical, would being pro choice and not being pro cannibalism fall into the same category? I mean, if we are all created equally... who wouldn't want some meat that's very abundant and apparently tastes like veal?



posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Aleister
 


If we did not eat cattle, they would go extinct as they are domesticated breeds and have actually grown in number far greater than there wild ancestors ever did, this is a form of symbiosis but we do need to radically improve our treatment of animals.
On story of a man whom worked in a slaughter house was that one day a cow turned and looked at him, he said he did not know how but he knew the cow understood what was going to happen and he felt like it was pleading with him, he never ate meat again.
Sheep are the same, we love a shepherds pie or a lamb stew but there is the inhumanity, we can use sheep for there wool but we kill there very young offspring.
In order to survive we have to do this and it is all well and good for us in the first world to think but were people are a lot poorer they have no choice, as a species we have to start thinking as an intelligent race rather than an intelligent individual amongst a group and we have to develop pan raciel ethics in our treatment of the other species we share this planet with but at the moment we have neither developed the resources nor have we gained enough mass motivation to move away from meat eating.

I think yes you can be PRO LIFE and eat meat but it is a personal philosophical decision and If I was not hooked on my ham and chips I would emotionally love to be able to not eat meat except the sight of a sprout send's me running for the hill's..



posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 10:12 AM
link   
The term 'pro-life' came about in the 60's to replace the term 'anti-abortion' and has nothing to do with being in favor of not terminating life of any living beings. Pro-life means anti-abortion or euthanasia. Euthanasia is defined as the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma and is is illegal in most countries.

So yes, you can be pro life and eat meat!



posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 10:12 AM
link   
As a pro-choice woman and a vegetarian, I have to say this line of reasoning is silly. The two have nothing to do with each other. Humans are carnivores, the reason I choose to be vegetarian is because I believe that we don't need to eat animals any longer to gain the protein we need but I am choosing to ignore my natural instincts as well as my cultural norms. You can't expect everyone to be able to or to even want to do that.

Pro-life... your average pro-life person (your typical jane/joe shmoe, not politicians) is pro-life because of their religious beliefs. Catholics/Christians/Muslims believe that God holds humanity above all others, and that he decreed humans to procreate. So by aborting a fetus you are defying God. Eating meat doesn't conflict because humans are above all other life on earth according to their religions.



posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 10:14 AM
link   
You are over thinking OP. When they use the term "pro-life" it's specifically in regards to the life of an unborn human. You and you alone are putting in into the context of the word life being in regards to all life on the planet. This is YOUR interpretation of pro-life and imho does not give you the right to chastise anti abortion advocates that do not conform to your choice of lifestyle.

You have all the right in the world to push your agenda if you so chose, but to me it sounds like your grasping for straws on this one. Find a better way to promote being a vegan than the "holier-than-thou" attitude. It's very unbecoming and only hurts your agenda. Just look at the negative reactions thus far on this thread alone.

I for one applaud those that can live that lifestyle because I am an animal lover myself. I for one can't because I don't possess the discipline and I also LOVE a good ole fashion hamburger. My wife is vegetarian and I am not, but we live harmoniously because we support one another. I cook most meals and they are vegetarian because I support her choice. When she picks up take out she gets me meat because she supports my choice.

edit on 1 26 2014 by SgtHamsandwich because: Horrible Grammar



posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Aleister
 


Hah! I love your twist and it will be a fun way to troll (in good nature, of course) the next pro-life activist I encounter. But... I think that would be as far as I would take the conversation without saying "I know, I'm just messing with you". I do agree that "anti abortion" is much more accurate than "pro life" but there's a reason behind the logic of insisting on "pro life". When think tanks get together, they know that it's much better, as an organized group, to be called "pro" something instead of "anti" something so, really, the insistence upon "pro life" is more of a strategy than ignorance. I get that.

I admit, I'm a vegetarian (though I don't tell that to very many people) but I also subscribe, spiritually, to a divinity that is triple in nature and part of that nature is death. That death aspect is required for the life that follows but I really only would apply that to hunters, not your average consumer who has a plethora of options when staring at the menu or grocery aisles. Obviously, I don't think people who don't need to eat meat (nobody from a first-world nation needs to eat meat) should actually do it since there are virtually zero ethical ways to obtain meat.

That is what I would base my argument on if I were you. It's not the fact that they eat meat but it's the immoral ways in which the life is treated in order to obtain it.

Ezekiel 34:2-4. Woe to the shepherds of Israel who only take care of
themselves! Should not the shepherds take care of the flock? You eat the curds,
clothe yourselves with the wool and slaughter the choice animals, but you did
not take care of the flock! You have not strengthened the weak or healed the
sick or bound up the injured. You have not brought back the strays or searched
for the lost. You have ruled them harshly and brutally.
This clearly places any Christian who eats fast food or almost any store-bought meat in a category of direct dissension from their god. They are to be the champions of anti-animal cruelty yet they decide to champion Chix-Fil-A instead!

So, can meat eaters be "pro-life" in the sense that they want to perpetuate more human life? Yeah... as long as you don't bring up the death sentence issue. But can Christain meat eaters be "pro-life" by actually being good stewards to the Earth as Christians are commanded to do? That's a great question.



posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 10:22 AM
link   

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.


We are destroyers and creators of life and death. Being a vegan is choosing to limit that destruction a bit but even vegans are often blind to their own destruction to the environment around them making simplifications and believing their simplifications judging others based on their simplification. I am pro diversity and think that humans keeping low birthrate, is the best thing that can happen to nature on earth, since it decreases the strain on nature and causes less humans to suffer on a planet that is a work in progress. Because overcrowding of humans causes suffering. The whole breed until you destroy the habitats and create famine is suicidal from my point of view and show typical small mindedness on those who preach it. There are other places in the universe that souls can be and spend time.



posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by StoutBroux
 


I really believe there's a difference between the two. I know it's hard to see how if we claim life is sacred and worth protecting, that there's a difference. They key difference between anti-abortion and anti-euthanasia is in the persons who's life is being taken having a say in it or not. If someone is terminally ill and desires to peacefully and painlessly end their life, I see no harm in that. But killing an unborn kid because the parents don't want it, that's not the same.

The biggest difference is when it comes down a person to taking their own life, versus taking the life of another. Want to take your own life? Probably not a good idea, probably shouldn't, I'd rather you not, but in the end it's your choice and nothing I do is going to stop you if it's your ultimate choice. Taking the life of another person simply because you want to? Not good, you shouldn't do it.

This is a much more complex issue than people give it credit for; like I've said before though, there's always going to be an exception. Always...



posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Aleister
 



Animals don't have souls.


You'd think creatures with souls would be kinder

:-)

I must have misunderstood the literature



posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by SgtHamsandwich
 



This is YOUR interpretation of pro life and imho does not give you right to chastise anti abortion advocates that do not conform to your choice of lifestyle.

You have all the right in the world to push your agenda if you so chose but to me it sounds like your grasping for straws on this one. Find a better way to promote being a vegan then the "holier-than-thou" attitude. It's very unbecoming and only hurts your agenda. Just look at the negative reactions thus far on this thread alone.


Should this advice go for pro-lifers as well?



posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Aleister
 


You're a Vegan?

Plants feel pain.



How does it feel torturing plants just so you can enjoy their taste?



posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Spiramirabilis
 


Oh, most definitely. It goes for anyone with an agenda. There are right and wrong ways of doing anything. Gain your support through the positive aspects of your agenda. It will go a lot further.



posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Montjeu
reply to post by redhorse
 


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



You're not stupid. My communication style is... turgid. It's a bad habit I have given up breaking.

I will try to explain.

That extreme stance creates a rigidity that often leads to extreme action.

For example, there are animal rights groups that will perform arson (dangerous and immoral) targeting private individuals, and they justify these decidedly immoral actions because they feel their cause is more moral.

There are pro-life activists that will feel justified humiliating women, or even killing Dr.'s who perform abortions because their stance is more righteous.

These moral justifications are (very nearly) inevitably only a thin skin presented to satisfy an individuals conscience so that they can give into an inherent inner cruelty, or even violence. The resulting kicker is, the most violent actions or even wars and genocides are perpetuated by people who always espouse a rhetorical stance of peace, non-violence, (or sometimes just slightly less violence). We dress up a brutal, animal instinct in righteous indignation and call it Good.

These moral blinders are responsible for more atrocities in human history than any other force. If you want to get people to commit violence against others, simply appeal to that sense (and nearly any rhetorical platform will do), that they are BETTER than those you are targeting. We all have this capacity, and while it does not always end in a worse-case-scenario, it is a very seductive tendency because it FEELS so good... so right(eous). This tendency I believe must be constantly guarded against because it too often spirals into something very, very ugly.

In the end, this is the impetus that no one likes to acknowledge or talk about, but is the very core of any self-righteous stance. This is where it starts, and this is why it often ends so badly.

I don't know if that helps explain much, but I gave it a shot.
edit on 26-1-2014 by redhorse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 10:42 AM
link   
There are technical ways to remove this debate from society. Remove the capability to procreate in all humans and add it when the human wants to have a kid. Then the debate is removed since there is no kids born who are not wanted. And all kids get parents that want them born like they deserve. God gave humanity the minds to be used to think logically and solve humanities problems and temper emotions with wisdom.



posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by grey580
 


That's such a boring and common go-to for every meat eater to use when confronting a vegetarian. It's ridiculous on many levels. Eating food from a plant is akin to sheering a sheep for wool; it doesn't have to kill the producer to make the product. Also, there is no way for a study to claim what measurements could be translated as "pain". For all you know, those plants are aroused.

For me the difference is that animal life is born from the Earth but then spends the rest of its life trying to reconnect. Plant life never leaves Earth and walks around therefore eating it is a wonderful way to have a part of Earth in us and reconnect.



posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Spiramirabilis
reply to post by Aleister
 



Animals don't have souls.


You'd think creatures with souls would be kinder

:-)

I must have misunderstood the literature


In that case animals have souls but humans do not?



posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Aleister
 


Some people may label your thoughts on "pro-life" as being ridiculous, but in my opinion, you're absolutely right! There are a lot of pro-lifers who are also pro-war and pro-death penalty. Pro-Life means exactly that - you're against killing life no matter if it's human or animal. The word "Pro=Life" has evolved into a narrow meaning for most anti-abortionists as only for the rights of an unborn human fetus. They seem to ignore the basic word and what it really signifies. Don't animals who also show emotion and feel pain have a right to life? Do "so called enemies", soldiers, and people who commit crimes also have a right to life?



posted on Jan, 26 2014 @ 10:55 AM
link   

SgtHamsandwich
reply to post by Spiramirabilis
 


Oh, most definitely. It goes for anyone with an agenda. There are right and wrong ways of doing anything. Gain your support through the positive aspects of your agenda. It will go a lot further.



Good reply

Excellent actually

:-)

I'd only add - that it goes further than just furthering your agenda - assuming you have one

It's about respecting the rights of others to come to their own conclusions - even while still trying your damnedest to get your point across

I understand animal rights activists - just as I understand pro-lifers

I am hard-core pro-choice




top topics



 
13
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join