Can someone be pro-life and still eat meat?

reply to post by FlySolo


I guess when it comes to rapists, pedos, and murderers, I would say that they have already shown themselves to not have a respect for life. Very often, you will find that not only do they not have a respect for the lives of other humans, but they often started out not having a respect for the lives of animals. They're the kids who pulled the wings off of flies because they could and thought it was funny. They're the ones who would set puppies or kittens on fire for the same reason. And they often go on to do unspeakable things to their fellow human beings later on.

So, yes, if you have no respect for the lives of other living beings, then you should lose any respect anyone has for your life.

Why should we respect your life in that case? Maybe you see a moral high ground there, but I see it as impractical to the state who must then keep you incarcerated and forever apart as you will always be a burden and a danger to society, especially in the case of a murderer. Some people cannot be fixed.

reply to post by ketsuko


I have already made the correction a post up. Big cats kill first. Besides, the cheetah clip shows this. Younger less experienced cats don't know this.

reply to post by SgtHamsandwich


"Them or us" was referring to the leaves of a plant, not the life of a plant. To obtain meat people have to kill the animal. Apples and oranges (or peanuts and cashews).

reply to post by Aleister


Only if the meat is dead.

ManBehindTheMask

Spiramirabilis
reply to post by LittleByLittle

 

It's all about compassion my friend - soul or no soul

How is it that the humans have one and the critters don't?

How is it OK to mistreat things without a soul if having a soul is suppose to mean you're better?

What is a soul for - anyhow?

:-)

So eating animals is mistreatment? Would you say that lions tearing apart a gazelle is mistreatment?

The whole argument is really a technical issue that should have been solved long ago. If all meat was created Synthetically then the moral issue disappears and you do not need to push and agenda on right and wrong. From a nutrient standpoint and spiritual standpoint meat is useful for the body (red meat,eggs and dairy products are good for root chakra). As in most things somewhere in between of two extremes lies the path.

To equate chickens with human beings is absurd.

Aleister
reply to post by SgtHamsandwich

 

"Them or us" was referring to the leaves of a plant, not the life of a plant. To obtain meat people have to kill the animal. Apples and oranges (or peanuts and cashews).

Eating a seed is eating the life of a new plant. Eating the fruit of a plant it eating the food of a new plant which in turn kills the seed that could have been. Either way you look at it your still destroying another "life".

A seed contains an embryo, an embryo is basically the fetus of a plant. According to your seed logic that makes it okay for me to eat the fetus of an animal. Not that I would because that's just terrible but it's the same logic.

reply to post by Aleister

it's usually the same answer: Animals don't have souls.

Until someone proves that human's have souls, your friend's argument is pretty invalid.

As for pro-lifer's eating meat - Prepare yourself for the contradiction "One life is worth more than the other because i say so"

Bull#ters.

Aleister
reply to post by SgtHamsandwich

 

"Them or us" was referring to the leaves of a plant, not the life of a plant. To obtain meat people have to kill the animal. Apples and oranges (or peanuts and cashews).

Also, if I go carve a piece of meat off of an animal and it still lives. Is that okay?

FlySolo
reply to post by ketsuko

 

I have already made the correction a post up. Big cats kill first. Besides, the cheetah clip shows this. Younger less experienced cats don't know this.

Umm, those cheetahs are eating as the wildebeest is still thrashing and moving around. It's still alive. And those are not inexperienced cats. Cheetahs cannot kill quickly because of their lack of armament, but they have to eat quickly or everything else on the savannah will come and take when they just brought down.

Also, your argument that big cats kill first is sort of equal to you trying to say that big cats are more moral than canines.

In many cases, the only reason it may seem to you that big cats kill first is because they hunt alone; they have to kill quickly to avoid being injured, not because they're being "nice." When they hunt in teams, as the cheetah clip shows, the ones not doing the suffocating often start early. The wild dog clip also shows this to be true. The mob can effectively hold the prey subdued while they eat as they kill.

Don't make the mistake of thinking there is any morality in nature's hunting and eating methods.

Is the constrictor less moral than the viper or elapid?

The way I look at it, people who worry so much about what others eat for the 'life' lost in the process are more than welcome to stop eating entirely and essentially show the concept of a self cleaning oven applied elsewhere. It works in many models, indeed.

As others have pointed out, how dare we even go there to define life force by priority of right to live? I draw the line at only one point on that and it's proof of sentient or self aware life. If they're intelligent enough to know you are you and they are them then they're probably too high up on the scale to be killing to fill a dinner plate. Now that definition is where intelligent people can vastly disagree.

However, to suggest a 100 year old tree is without a life force is insulting and absurd. It's not one we understand as being too foreign to us to really bother trying more than we have ...but it lives, it reacts to injury and it dies, having shown willful action in direction of growth and often reaction to adverse elements to grow away from. It's life. We kill it to eat it in some forms or we kill it to build things of our own benefit in others. We do the same to higher forms for meat. The difference is moot if LIFE is the argument.

....We can also just stop LOOKING for reasons to feel like crap about our own species and accept that, as every other life form on Earth, we DO bring some degree of harm to others in our own need to live ..and just minimize that as much as is reasonable.

I try not to throw out an uneaten hamburger, as my contribution. (I think I do well on that goal, too.. )

I think the OP title could simply say "Can someone be pro-life and still eat?"

I mean, if you're going to try and be as non-hypocritical as possible, why not
go all the way. Point is, if your are eating something, it is highly likely that
you killed it to eat it--be it plant or animal.

You, and the rest of the world would get REALLY hungry waiting for the
apple to fall from the tree...because if you plucked it...you killed it.

...just saying

LittleByLittle

ManBehindTheMask

Spiramirabilis
reply to post by LittleByLittle

 

It's all about compassion my friend - soul or no soul

How is it that the humans have one and the critters don't?

How is it OK to mistreat things without a soul if having a soul is suppose to mean you're better?

What is a soul for - anyhow?

:-)

So eating animals is mistreatment? Would you say that lions tearing apart a gazelle is mistreatment?

The whole argument is really a technical issue that should have been solved long ago. If all meat was created Synthetically then the moral issue disappears and you do not need to push and agenda on right and wrong. From a nutrient standpoint and spiritual standpoint meat is useful for the body (red meat,eggs and dairy products are good for root chakra). As in most things somewhere in between of two extremes lies the path.

So why is it a moral issue now but it use to not be? and Synthetic meat? That doesnt sound safe either and brings many other things into question.

LittleByLittle

ManBehindTheMask

Spiramirabilis
reply to post by LittleByLittle

 

It's all about compassion my friend - soul or no soul

How is it that the humans have one and the critters don't?

How is it OK to mistreat things without a soul if having a soul is suppose to mean you're better?

What is a soul for - anyhow?

:-)

So eating animals is mistreatment? Would you say that lions tearing apart a gazelle is mistreatment?

The whole argument is really a technical issue that should have been solved long ago. If all meat was created Synthetically then the moral issue disappears and you do not need to push and agenda on right and wrong. From a nutrient standpoint and spiritual standpoint meat is useful for the body (red meat,eggs and dairy products are good for root chakra). As in most things somewhere in between of two extremes lies the path.

So why is it a moral issue now but it use to not be? and Synthetic meat? That doesnt sound safe either and brings many other things into question.

If Vegans are so enlighten that they abstain from eating meat because they value it's life too much to eat it then all vegans should also value life enough to abstain from having an abortion.
The Pro Life phrase is slogan not to be taken literally, a better one might be Choose-Life. Having an abortion is a conscious decision made by an individual. For what ever reason they use to justify one they are not choosing to support the life of the child whether it be unwanted or inconvenient, they are still making a conscious decision to end the life of their own embryo.
I am saddened by anyone that would make that choice, but it is still their choice that they will have to live with.

schuyler
To equate chickens with human beings is absurd.

To equate human beings with the flickering electricity of a collection of cells is even more absurd.

I'm a vegetarian and I'm pro-choice. What does that make me? A hypocrite? Interesting theory. I like it!

underduck

schuyler
To equate chickens with human beings is absurd.

To equate human beings with the flickering electricity of a collection of cells is even more absurd.

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

Well, if you took DNA samples from that "collection of cells" and you and gave both to a scientist, he couldn't tell you that one was only a "collection of cells" and the other was a mature man/woman, but he could conclusively tell you that both are human.

reply to post by ketsuko


But you could never tell by looking at them.

reply to post by MonkeyMentat


Calling their movement something else would of course preclude any criticism. But using the phrase "Pro-life", a very specific phrase, opens the door to these type of questions (meat eating, the death penalty, etc.). What probably occurred, and I don't know the history, is that someone or a group chose that name - a name which stuck, was repeated, and then became a meme - without taking these aspects into account.