Why do some vegans find it necessary to harshly judge non-vegans?

I am not a vegan, but will try to answer anyway. When people have strong moral convictions, they will judge others who don’t follow those convictions. There are also in group/out group dynamics at play. Basically, when people identify as part of a group, they develop a strong loyalty to that group and discriminate against outsiders. This dynamic applies to other groups outside veganism, such as religious practicioners and even sports fans. Here’s a link for more info:

http://www.utwente.nl/cw/theorieenoverzicht/Theory%20clusters/Interpersonal%20Communication%20and%20Relations/Social_Identity_Theory.doc/

Also, according to some stats, vegans only make up about 0.5% of the US population, so they are a small minority. Minorities tend to get marginalized. A marginalized person or group may feel threatened when others make choices that would cast a doubt on the validity of their own choice (i.e. veganism), and so they might lash out at defectors. The case for veganism doesn’t look very strong when even a dedicated vegan can’t maintain the lifestyle. And the aggressive backlash against the blogger will further serve to make veganism look bad, which is unfortunate for vegans who practice peacefully without attacking others.

I really like answers that stand up for things you don’t believe in (Really, I GA’ed you @lonelydragon). I am all for them having their beliefs, but for the jerks I am all for my right of free speech and calling them names they deserve.

Because self-righteousness is a more powerful drug than cocaine or heroin.

I agree with @Blondesjon.

Man, it’s good to see you posting again. It’s like fucking breath of fresh air. :)

Hard core vegans are not making a food choice but have a specific view towards animals. True vegans don’t use leather, don’t use anything that comes from an animal. It’s a life philosophy/belief, and thus many proselytize.

Very good Q @jlelandg , how refreshing to read that. I was vegan many years ago and couldn’t maintain my health eating that way. I was also judged very harshly by a few when i re-introduced animal products. The people that were the most vicious said they felt I personally betrayed them. It was all very bizarre and unsettling.

Personally, as a vegetarian, I have found that many non-vegetarians are much more defensive and harsh (or flippant and dismissive) towards vegetarians and vegans than vegans are to non-vegans. Read almost any discussion here on vegetarianism, for example- this thread which is the one that finally convinced me to leave Fluther for a year (thank goodness Rarebear asked me back; things do seem better now.)

Yes, I have met some vegans who are jerks; I am not excusing them. But this street definitely goes two ways.

Word, @crisw. I actively avoid any kind of proselytizing or arguments about eating meat, yet omnivores seem intent on trying to convince me I’m wrong, then getting defensive when I explain my position.

@crisw

Really? I find the opposite to be true much of the time (at least, on the mostly-liberal online communities I’ve been to). No, not all vegans/vegetarians are like that; most of them are fine with other people’s choices and don’t bother them if they are not bothered. But I have met some vegans/vegetarians online who think that eating is simply “immoral” and thus they try to force themselves on others due to their own self-righteousness. I doubt most omnivores think only eating plants is immoral…

In other words, OP, it’s hard to ignore another person’s choice if you truly believe it’s immoral and I’d wager that’s a large part of why SOME vegans/vegetarians can be so judgmental and harsh. If you feel like people are doing something that they shouldn’t be (i.e. eating meat), you’re going to try and stop it. And again, that is not all or even most vegans/vegetarians.

I think this post has some really great insights – about how she was trying to save the world with veganism. So then it follows that if those who aren’t vegan are murderers, and eating meat is the most evil thing you can do, then even without her accusing you of being evil, you know she thinks it.
Then just follow the links around…

@DominicX

“But I have met some vegans/vegetarians online who think that eating is simply “immoral” and thus they try to force themselves on others due to their own self-righteousness. ”

What I usually see happens is that someone invites discussion on the topic, then, when vegetarians explain why they think eating meat is immoral, the carnivores make the claim of “force” rather than actually cogently addressing the moral arguments. That’s certainly what happened in the thread I referenced (which you were a part of.) It’s rather like religious discussions where those who follow a religion claim that any discussion of the faults of their religion is “persecution.”

Did you really get so upset that you left an Internet forum for a year because of a discussion thread geared around arguments defending meat and vegetable diets?

@crisw

First off, the term is omnivore; a carnivore is an animal that only eats meat and is a specific order of animals, of which humans are not a member. Just making sure…

Secondly, yes, it’s true that both sides can be compared to two religions. The difference is, in my mind, that omnivores don’t think not eating meat is immoral. Didn’t you say in that thread, as I recall, that eating meat should be illegal? Isn’t that akin to, using your religion analogy, saying that one religion should be legal and other religions should be banned? Isn’t it similar to the Christian missionaries who try to convert people of other religions rather than let everyone practice their own religion on their own?

@DominicX

I really don’t want to re-open the debate in a thread that isn’t dedicated to doing so, unless the OP invites us to. However, just to clarify, the point is that if a practice is immoral then it really doesn’t matter that “so-and-so doesn’t think not doing X is immoral.” If a practice is immoral, in most cases it’s because it harms a sentient being. If such harm is unjust, then it shouldn’t be done. So the discussion is rightly whether or not such harm is just. If it is not just, then no one’s rights are being infringed by stopping it, as no one has a right to inflict unnecessary harm.

And note that, no matter how strongly one feels that a practice is moral, if a logical argument that withstands critical scrutiny and is free of obvious errors of logic cannot be presented to assert its morality, then no real claim can be made as to its morality.

Note that this post is not intended as an explanation or assertion of the morality of eating meat. It’s it merely an attempt to clarify what’s being discussed.

@crisw

“If a practice is immoral”. What does that mean? Who decides what’s moral and what’s not? Who says that morality is determined based on harm done to another being? I know there are plenty of cultures and people who do not regard that as the determining factor for moral and immoral actions. Take Christianity and its belief that sodomy is immoral, for example.

The point is, some vegans view eating meat as immoral. As you said in the other thread, if something is immoral (again, who says?) then you don’t ignore it, you try and put a stop to it. That I think is the root cause of the irritation with some vegans/vegetarians. The fact that they believe eating meat is immoral and that it should be stopped. Thus, they are not tolerant of other people’s choices and believe that one choice is right, the other is wrong, and the wrong one needs to be stamped out. If that’s not “force”, I don’t know what is. I’ve never met an omnivore who thought that not eating meat was an immoral practice that needed to be eradicated. Thus, there is no validity to the claim that these positions are two sides of the same coin. One side is considerably different than the other.

because they are jerks…you have anyone who pushes their beliefs and deliberatly makes people feel bad…thats your grade A jerk right there.

@jlelandg I agree that the vegans who attacked Tasha were way out of line, and am not defending their actions. I was just trying to postulate reasons why they did what they did.

@DominicX

OK, this will be very general, as what I want to emphasize here is logical ethical systems rather than espousing a particular point of view.

Basically, when it comes to morality, you can believe one of two things. Either valid ethical systems exist or they do not. Although some people like to state that they believe that there are no valid ethical systems, I don’t know of any mentally-healthy human beings who actually live by such a notion. None of us wants to live in a world where anyone may do anything at any time for any reason. All of us accept the need for some code of moral behavior- sets of rules that describe how we ought to behave.

So what makes a moral system valid? I believe it’s consistency and coherency. If moral systems exist to guide behavior, they have to make sense and they cannot be arbitrary, or they do not serve the purpose for which they are intended. When we look at a rule, these are the things that we look at to see if it’s morally valid.

“Consistency” means that, in any given situation, morally equivalent parties are treated the same way. Discrimination against black people is wrong, for example, because it’s inconsistent- there is no morally relevant difference between black people and white people.

“Coherency” means that the rules of a system make logical sense and follow logical principles. The case for any given rule can be laid out in logical steps where one premise follows from the next and none of the premises are false. In particular, a coherent ethic does not depend on logical fallacies such as the naturalistic fallacy, slippery slope arguments, ad hominem arguments, etc.

The reason that ethical systems matter to us is that we are beings that can experience both pain and pleasure, that have lives that can go better or worse for us. If we were not sentient, nothing would matter to us, and rights serve our desires to have lives that maximize our pleasure and minimize our pain. Thus, the root of almost all valid ethical systems is a prohibition against harming another innocent sentient being, unless that harm is necessary to avert a greater harm. The corollary to this is then that all actions that do not cause harm to another are permitted, as there is no logical reason to prohibit them.

Remember that just because an ethical system claims to exist, that doesn’t automatically give it a free pass in the area of consistency and coherency. So, for example, the Christian laws against sodomy that you mention are inconsistent as well as incoherent because they prohibit one group from engaging n activities that harm no one.

I wanted to say a bit about tolerance. “Tolerance” as a virtue applies only to those actions that cause no harm. We would never state, for example, that one should tolerate murder or rape or robbery, that those who are intolerant of such things are somehow infringing upon the rights of others to do as they please. So, if a behavior is immoral, it isn’t intolerant to oppose it.

strict hindus don’t argue over hamburgers this much . . .

@Blondesjon They would if more of them had the internet in their bedroom.

Why do some religious zealots find it necessary to harshly judge atheists?

Why do some aggressive atheists find it necessary to harshly judge religious people?

Why do some ultra conservatives find it necessary to harshly judge liberals?

Why do some ultra liberals find it necessary to harshly judge conservatives?

Because they all don’t understand the idea of tolerance, which is appreciation of diversity, the ability to live and let others live, the ability to adhere to one’s convictions while accepting that others adhere to theirs.

It’s a good idea to cut down on meat consumptions, for several reasons. There is for example the negative effect of excessive meat production on our atmosphere and other natural resources of our planet.

There are on the other hand areas of land which cannot be used for tillage. The limited raising goats and sheep can be a good idea. In many poorer countries it offers a good source of income.

@crisw

In other words, what you’re saying is that if you consider killing humans to be wrong, you must also consider killing animals to be wrong in order for the moral system to be “consistent”.

“there is no morally relevant difference between black people and white people.”

And here is the loophole in your argument. Is there a morally relevant difference between animals and people? Many people seem to think there is. How can you prove that there is not?

@DominicX: At the risk of putting words in @crisw‘s mouth (fingers?), let me suggest this: why are humans worthy of moral consideration? Most people, I think, would agree that it’s because humans are capable of suffering, and we all want to minimize suffering. The goal of most moral systems, really, is to minimize harm.

So animals are only worthy of moral consideration to the degree that they, too, can experience suffering. What do you think? Are animals capable of feeling fear, anxiety, and/or pain?

@nikipedia

And that’s why most people, no matter how much meat they eat, do not favor inhumane treatment of animals. I do not believe that killing an animal for meat is wrong, but I do believe that essentially torturing animals up until the point they are killed is wrong.

Another interesting point: I find a certain contradictory message from some vegans/vegetarians is that they want to convey the image that humans are not so different from animals. That since we don’t kill humans, we shouldn’t kill animals either since we’re not so different. But then: animals kill each other all the time. How come animals are exempt from moral obligations? What of the order Carnivora, animals that only eat meat? Are they hideous monsters that should be eradicated from the earth? How come it’s okay for animals to kill each other, but it’s not okay for humans to kill other animals (after all, we are all animals, aren’t we?)

@DominicX: But so few people put their money where their mouth is. People claim to be against inhumane treatment of animals, yet more than 99% of meat consumed in this country comes from factory farms. If what you say is true, and people really opposed to causing animal suffering, then this is the height of hypocrisy.

Also, just because non-human animals and humans are equally(?) capable of suffering doesn’t mean any vegetarian is arguing we’re equally capable of moral reasoning. Beyond that, carnivorous animals don’t have a choice about eating meat. I can’t speak for other vegetarians, but I certainly don’t hold meat eating against people who, for whatever reason, require meat in their diets. I apply the same standard to animals.

@nikipedia

Oh, I’m not saying people are not hypocritical and not doing all they can. But to truly change anything requires a complete overhaul of the system of this country. And it isn’t just up to meat-eaters to change it either. It’s up to everyone. Like @crisw said, if something is immoral, you don’t ignore it, you try and stop it. And that includes herbivores and omnivores alike.

Also, there is a definite scale of animals, that’s for sure. Non-human animals are certainly not all treated equally. An ant is very different from an elephant in their abilities to experience what humans experience. Where the lines are drawn on this scale is where it becomes confusing…

@nikipedia, I’m curious where you got the information that “more than 99% of meat consumed in this country comes from factory farms.”

@DominicX

“And here is the loophole in your argument. Is there a morally relevant difference between animals and people? Many people seem to think there is. How can you prove that there is not?”

It’s hard to do it in a brief form, but here goes.

As @nikipedia pointed out, we are capable of feeling pleasure and pain and thus our lives matter to us and can go better or worse for us. We have preference autonomy- we prefer certain things and it makes us happy when those things happen. We dislike certain things and it pains us when they happen. We are subjects of a life.

If we did not have such feelings and emotions, if we were mere automata, rights would not matter to us and we would not benefit from them. So our sentience is a necessary capacity for rights, and it’s pretty easy to agree that non-sentient things have no rights in and of themselves, as nothing we can do “matters” to a non-sentient object.

So where do animals fall? It’s clear that at least some animals are also subjects of a life- they feel pain and pleasure, they have preferences, they have lives that can go better or worse for them. So, if we are to treat them differently from humans and not be arbitrary, we must then find a morally relevant difference between all animals, on the one hand, and all humans, on the other. If we cannot find such a difference, then we cannot justify treating at least some animals in ways that we would never treat any humans. What could such a difference be? To deal with the most-commonly presented options-

It can’t be “We are human and they are not.” Besides being a tautology- saying we are human doesn’t show what is special about being human- we can certainly conceive of beings who are not human to whom we would accord rights. Being human is not a necessary condition for rights possession.

It can’t be anything along the lines of “We are more intelligent” or “We have language.” There are many human beings- infants, the senile, the permanently mentally handicapped- who are less intelligent than many animals and who cannot speak, yet we do not condone serving them up for dinner because of this. In addition, we do not accord humans greater basic rights just because they are smarter or more eloquent.

There are many other reasons we could explore here, but the basic concept remains the same. In order to treat animals differently, there has to be a non-arbitrary, morally-relevant difference between all of them and all of us.

“How come it’s okay for animals to kill each other, but it’s not okay for humans to kill other animals (after all, we are all animals, aren’t we?)”

When I referred to the naturalistic fallacy above, this was the exact argument I had in mind. it comes up over and over again in any such discussion.

Two points here. The first is that the naturalistic fallacy- we can do X because it’s natural or because other animals do it- is faulty logic and thus cannot be used as a defense of anything. Other animals also rape, kill others of their species, commit infanticide, eat their mothers, etc. yet we do not seek to justify our behavior by these examples.

The second point is that the fact that some animals kill other animals doesn’t therefore imply that we, in turn, can kill those animals.

The class of rights-holding beings can be divided into two groups. Moral agents are those beings who can comprehend and act on systems of rights. Moral patients are beings whom, although they possess basic rights by virtue of their sentience, do not have the capacity to recognize rights or chose ethical actions. Examples of such moral patients would be the humans I mentioned above- infants, the senile, the permanently mentally handicapped. We grant them rights but they have no obligations in return. Rights-holding animals would fall into the same class.

“Also, there is a definite scale of animals, that’s for sure”

I agree. There are certainly animals that do not fulfill the criteria I mentioned above such as preference autonomy and that are not sentient enough to benefit from rights. I personally believe the line is somewhere between vertebrate and invertebrate, with cephalopods on the rights-holding side but most other invertebrates on the other. However, the inability to draw a clear line doesn’t mean that all animals can be left in the cold. Some animals- including mammals and birds- clearly do meet the criteria I posted above.

Many animals in the wild suffer far more than many domesticated animals with good food, shelter and access to vets. We need to fight for species-appropriate animal husbandry and we need to fight against cruelty to animals.

wow this topic has got pretty philosophical…frankly i’d find it hard to “fight” for anything on a belief only basis. Right and wrong are afterall only a matter or perspective unless you are willing to belive in certain in-aliable (no idea how you spell that) laws/judgement that govern existence. I find that rather a stretch personally so what your left with are self imposed regulations for making your life and that of others in modern society pleasant and fullfilling…important to us tho they may be they become fuzzier the harder you look at them.

@noodle_poodle

Not sure if you read my last post- I do point out the potential flaws in such a system.

i know i was just adding my 50 cents

@noodle_poodle

So how do you address the flaws, if you know they are there?

@crisw – I don’t believe it was directed at you, it’s not a debate, it’s a conversation…

@crisw do you mean the flaws in my opinion or yours? @funkdaddy Is right my post was in no way an aswer or a question to yours It was my opinion on the topic. Thats pretty much the point of fluther when it comes to non instructional questions isnt it.

~Cuz meat is like sex, if you aren’t gettin’ any, you’re gonna be irritable~ :) hehehe

@noodle_poodle

I guess I see things differently. When someone makes a philosophical or factual point in a discussion on any topic, I expect them to be able to support that point if asked (especially if previous information in the discussion already seems to contradict what they say). I expect that people who take a position on an issue and then announce that position do so because they have a rational reason for doing so. I am always rather surprised when a question is asked and someone states “That’s just my opinion” and doesn’t attempt to explain it.

And perhaps it’s just the recent questions on critical thinking that have sensitized me to this a bit more than usual. :>)

You know, this can be argued all day, every day and never have a satisfactory conclusion. Vegans will despise omnivores and call us murderers, omnivores will despise the holier than thou attitudes of the vegans and continue gnoshing on steaks. It will never end.

One thing about a lot of vegans that really pisses me off is their inconsistent beliefs between food habits and other, more important issues.

@WillWorkForChocolate

“One thing about a lot of vegans that really pisses me off is their inconsistent beliefs between food habits and other, more important issues.”

I am afraid that’s a logical fallacy, though. You cannot judge the soundness of an ethical argument based on those who espouse the argument.

@crisw actually its more that I cant be bothered to argue with someone who phrases things the way you do. Besides my post explains my standing fairly concisely.

@crisw What that statement meant was how vegans will call me all sorts of awful things, including evil, for eating animals, yet a lot of them argue the right for a woman to abort a baby, or they argue that evil people who torture children can be “rehabilitated”. It disgusts me that some vegans seem to have stronger feelings about animals than they do for humans.

@WillWorkForChocolate

I think there really is a philosophical difference between killing a sentient animal and destroying a non-sentient blastocyst in an early abortion. I’d be happy to discuss it if you wanted to in another thread, as it’s probably not appropriate here. The two positions are not incompatible.

The point remains, though- if killing animals for food is morally wrong, it’s wrong no matter who makes the argument. We may find a person hypocritical, but that doesn’t weaken a philosophical argument.

@WillWorkForChocolate Some (not all) of the people who are vegan do it because they feel that the way we currently deal with animals (factory farms, etc) is damaging to the Earth and contributes to global warming and the hunger epidemic, not (entirely) because they feel killing animals food food is wrong.

@crisw I’m not starting a whole new thread that will only raise my blood pressure and upset me, so I’ll just say my piece here to explain my angle and I’ll be done with it.

You find eating animals to be morally wrong. I find killing babies to be morally wrong. It’s your choice if you don’t see it as a baby. I do. And according to my beliefs, God gave us the animals to eat, so it’s hardly immoral. That’s the point. We disagree on what we find immoral.

Different people believe different things, so you can argue that eating animals is immoral all you want and it won’t change anything. Just like I can argue that abortion is murder, but it won’t change your mind. Now then, here’s the most important part of the disagreement. For argument’s sake, say that we’re BOTH right in our beliefs. Who has the right to be MORE upset? The one who screams for animal rights? Or the one who screams for the rights of an unborn child? In the grand scheme of things, who on this planet is more important? The humans or the animals?

Humans are animals.

@WillWorkForChocolate

Did you read my philosophical post above? If so, it explains some of the problems with this type of logic, but I will go over it a bit more specifically in regards to your post.

“I find killing babies to be morally wrong”

Slippery slope argument. A blastocyst is not a baby any more than an egg is a chicken. Beating an egg isn’t a moral wrong; beating a chicken is.

“It’s your choice if you don’t see it as a baby. I do.”

It isn’t about “choice.” It’s about what facts and logic support. See my post above for more on this, but you can’t just declare something to be so without offering evidence for its veracity. A normal mammal meets all the criteria I mention above for being the subject of a life, such as preference autonomy and being able to feel pain and experience pleasure. A blastocyst does not. If you wish to accord rights to a blastocyst, then you have to be able to present a logically-sound argument why we should,

“And according to my beliefs, God gave us the animals to eat, so it’s hardly immoral”

No moral point can be resolved purely by recourse to religion, because religions differ. All valid moral points derived from religion are supportable by independent logical validation. So, for example, the Golden Rule can be supported, for the most part, through independent validation. Stoning someone to death for being gay, however, cannot. So, again, if you are to declare a practice immoral, you’ll need some other validation than the Bible.

“Different people believe different things,”

Yes, they do. But not all beliefs are equally logically valid.

“so you can argue that eating animals is immoral all you want and it won’t change anything. Just like I can argue that abortion is murder, but it won’t change your mind”

I have posted on this before, but not in this thread. One prime difference between logical and illogical thought is that someone thinking logically will be the first to say that, if the facts or the logic can successfully be disputed, then the position will change. That is a primary difference between faith and reason. If it could be proved, for example, that animals really are unfeeling automata, or that a blastocyst is a fully conscious individual, my stance would most definitely change- because that is the only thing that is reasonable.

“For argument’s sake, say that we’re BOTH right in our beliefs. Who has the right to be MORE upset? The one who screams for animal rights? Or the one who screams for the rights of an unborn child?”

People can be upset about whatever they want, so I would rather talk about who has the most valid argument. Given what we know to be true- which is the only thing I can reasonably discuss- the animal advocate does. A normal mammal or bird, as I have mentioned, feels pain and pleasure, has preference autonomy, has a life that can go better or worse for him or her. Such a being can suffer and has things to gain from satisfying pleasure and things to lose from being harmed, because such a being is aware of pain and pleasure.

There is no scientific evidence and not even any proposed mechanism for a blastocyst or a zygote to experience or feel anything whatsoever, any more than a chicken egg does. It has no nervous system; it’s a clump of cells. It is not the subject of a life and has no preference autonomy.

“In the grand scheme of things, who on this planet is more important? The humans or the animals?”

What grand scheme? There is no grand scheme. We are all here and trying to survive. And we humans, who are the only beings capable of making ethical choices, can choose to survive as ethical, logical beings along with all the other living things on this planet or choose to satisfy our desires without heed to the needs of others. I would hope we can choose to be logical and ethical. As Nikipedia said, we are all animals, and we are all in this together.

Okay, I’m not reading all that, I made it as far as your first couple of sentences. It all boils down to what you believe. You believe that a baby is a bunch of crap until it can “survive on it’s own”. I believe the animals are here for us to eat. Beliefs, beliefs, beliefs. End of story.

Oh, and by the way, a “fetus” has a heartbeat at just 4 weeks and the nervous system is developed enough that the baby will repond to a hair being scratched on it’s cheek at just 7 weeks. I call that a baby and not a stupid egg. But then again, believe whatever you want.

@WillWorkForChocolate

“I’m not starting a whole new thread that will only raise my blood pressure and upset me, so I’ll just say my piece here to explain my angle and I’ll be done with it.”

Pursuing a vegan diet might help you keep your blood pressure down. ;-)

@WillWorkForChocolate

“Okay, I’m not reading all that, I made it as far as your first couple of sentences. ”

I am sorry that complicated issues cannot be dismissed in a paragraph and actually do require some effort to read. I am doing the courtesy of reading and responding in detail to your responses to me; it’s unfortunate that you cannot do the same, especially since the end result is that you keep on making the same logical errors and keep on conflating “belief” and factual evidence.

“It all boils down to what you believe. ”

If you had bothered to read what I wrote, you’d know why that is not an adequate argument, no matter how many times you repeat it.

“Oh, and by the way, a “fetus” has a heartbeat at just 4 weeks”

So? What does that have to do with sentience? A daphnia has a heartbeat from the moment it hatches; that does not make it sentient.

“and the nervous system is developed enough that the baby will repond to a hair being scratched on it’s cheek at just 7 weeks”

Cite, please, from something other than anti-abortion propaganda?

Neurological research shows that the nervous system of a fetus is not well developed enough to register pain until at least 24–26 weeks gestation. Reflex responses are not equivalent to being able to feel anything.

@crisw do you think it would be alright to perform abortions on, say monkeys (their gestation is about the same as a human’s) as a method of birth control?

Also, if your basis of justification of abortion is the ability to feel at a certain point, what about people with familial dysautonomia or other Hereditary Sensory Autonomic Neuropathies?

What if you could genetically alter an animal to not feel pain? By your logic, it would be alright to not be a vegan or vegetarian. What other animals intentionally abort their young by eating poison or allowing another animal to forcible take the young from her womb?

@bkcunningham

Interesting questions.

“do you think it would be alright to perform abortions on, say monkeys (their gestation is about the same as a human’s) as a method of birth control?”

That’s fairly far-fetched and I am not sure where you are going with it. To use a real-world example, I don’t have a problem with spaying pregnant dogs or cats. If a monkey needed an abortion for some reason, I don’t see an ethical issue with it.

“Also, if your basis of justification of abortion is the ability to feel at a certain point, what about people with familial dysautonomia or other Hereditary Sensory Autonomic Neuropathies?”

It isn’t just based on feeling pain, as I think I have explained above. It’s the entire concept of being a subject of a life, a being with preferences. People with neurological disorders such as you mention meet these qualifications; early-term fetuses do not.

“What if you could genetically alter an animal to not feel pain? By your logic, it would be alright to not be a vegan or vegetarian.”

The answer remains the same as for the neurological issue.

Now, if you could engineer an animal that felt nothing and sensed nothing and wanted nothing, I’d have no ethical objections to eating it- just as I don’t have any ethical objections now to eating animals that do not show any evidence of being subjects of a life (like clams, for example) There might still be reasonable ethical reasons not to raise such animals, such as resource consumption, but the act of eating them, in and of itself, would not be immoral.

“What other animals intentionally abort their young by eating poison or allowing another animal to forcible take the young from her womb?”

I am not sure what you are getting at here, . Actually, lots and lots of animals undergo spontaneous abortion and fetal resorption for a large variety of reasons. The fact that animals may not intentionally abort is irrelevant to any valid ethical argument I can think of.

It just blows my mind that there are more than 1.3 million abortions a year in the US alone. That doesn’t even take into account women who use the morning after pill. Considering that 1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur because the baby is unwanted or inconvenient.

Gilrs under 15 account for only 1.2 percent of these abortions and teenagers account for 20 percent.

I just wonder what kind of birth control method these women are using.

Oh, those stats are from the pro abortion research center the Guttmacher Institute

@crisw

”...animals that do not show any evidence of being subjects of a life (like clams, for example).”

Do animals that are lower on the taxonomic scale, such as annelids, also not show any evidence of being subjects of life?

@Brian1946

I think the line is somewhere in the invertebrate kingdom, with cephalopods on the sentient side. I am willing to change my mind with research evidence, Annelids are pretty primitive; I don’t think they are sentient.

@bkcunningham

I am not sure that any of that has anything to do with what I said to you. Were you trying to make an ethical point?

@crisw not an ethical point. Just an observation based on fact about a medical procedure performed exclusively on women. Since it was used as a point in this discussion, I just wanted to offer facts to explore and perhaps enlighten and broaden the consciousness.
“Every human being is the author of his own health or disease.”

LadyDragon, you go girl. i have got your back all the way.

Genesis 1:24–31. Hi all. This is my first comment on fluther. I’m not trying to start an argument or anything, only hopefully give new perspective to this thread. First of all, I’m not your normal, every day neo-Christian that limits themselves to cliched philosophies they heard from their “leaders.” No, I’m a self thinking, researching believer in God. I was reading this thread and found it rather interesting. Heard some of the same arguments and a few new ones to me. But I opened up my Bible read to myself that short little passage on the first page of the Bible looking for clarity of thought on what God designed or gave us to eat.

First of all, all of the believers in my circle have always cited v. 26 as meaning we should eat meat from anything on the earth, whether it be fish, cattle, fowl of the air, etc. based on that alone, I could have thought to myself, meat must be our designated food source given by our creator for our use. But I ventured on and read v. 29–30 and I thought how in the world have I missed this. But, you see, reading the Bible on your own, free from distraction can be much more enlightening than while you’re listening to a preacher/reverendv or whatever explain it to you. Conclusions coming from this verse are that God intended for Man(capitalized because we are ALL Children of God.) To eat herbs, fruits and vegetables, seeds for meat(food). I don’t see a commandment not to eat meat but from my very own research into nutrition and supplements has taught me a lot about just how much nutritional value you can find in things that grow from the ground. My other conclusion would be that milking cows and goats or whatever is better than actually eating it! So I would never be vegan as in not using leather products, etc.

Do I have meat in my freezer? Yeah. Fish, and some venison I got from a food bank when I was unemployed. To me it doesn’t appear that God commanded us not to ever eat meat, but on the other hand, He did tell us what WAS for meat!? I know I don’t have all the ansers at this current time. Its my opinion that it is foolish to make up one’s mind about something and never change it even when they learn better. Because I am currently actively on a journey looking for healthiest foods, ways to live and obviously doing less harm to the environment by doing so, I am ok with admitting to myself that what I have been told in the past may have been wrong.

Lol. It’s really no wonder at all that I find many practices of the Christianity, specifically Baptist(which I was born into so to speak since my entire family is Baptist) to be concerning to me. I find myself listening to a pastor make a certain point or stereotype agains some minority such as gays and think? Are you serious? You’re totally going to do that? The logic I use is they generally preach against the deceit, not the liers themselves, the theft but not the theif, or the act of fornication, not the fornicator, so why on earth would it be different with that. They should definitely preach against the sin of it if they believe the Bible but I have heard a lot of bashing the GAY MOVEMENT itself. Uhhh!

No wonder I’m kind of a misfit in the church I occasionally attend. But see, I’m just searching for truth. I’m more tied to God than people. I mean if I chose to follow my pastor on every issue even if it wasn’t truthfully based on logic and the Bible(they go together) it would be just like a kid doing something that their brother told them to even after the parent(s) instructed him differently.

I apologize to anyone in advance if I have offended them and I promise that I have no issues with any human being or group. Only the thoughts, intentions, actions, and words of a person can be morrally right or wrong. I know that some things in this comment are not directly related to the subject of the thread but insteadv of isolated facts and truths I like to work with context. Kind of like stringing words together to form sentences. It usually adds meaning. Ex. A toddler might say “food.” What, you want some? Whereas, an older person gives more clarity of thought based on more years practicing the art of language.

So, my final thoughts are summed up as you can base your diet off the many times uncontrollable diet of animals, or you can rather pick and choose directly for yourself quality nutritions from things grown. I don’t think most people would argue that plants are sentient or feel pain.( although I know some do, its not based on any facts that I’m aware of.) If you were to follow a habit of eating things from the ground I would remind others that in addition to your local stores and non local super centers, there are a plethora of food sources and herb supplements online that have helped me immensely so far in my “journey.” As for protein sources, if you say no to meats, drink milk. But do your own research and make every attempt to make yourself and others better along the way! Best of wishes. BTW omega 3, 6, and 9 don’t have to be obtained by fish. Although I have fish oil caps I also have hemp seed oil I found online that is absolutely amazing for skin, mind, body, and overall health. The list goes on and on. I’m not aware of any one essential nutrient that cannot be obtained from many different choices.

Sorry but I didn’t read the whole thread so I may be repeating.

I believe they can be so judgmental as a way to protect themselves from the judgment on the reverse side. Why do non-vegans, judge vegans?

People don’t get why others won’t eat meat, they think its unnatural. So a vegan can get defensive and thus become judgmental..

As for which one is right. Whatever is right for that person is right. There is no true answer.

Sincerely, a non-vegan.