Animal rights vs. Abortion rights

[James]

Quote by: G. Adams An unborn baby dies it's a tradegy for the family. A creature on the endagered list dying is a tragedy for everyone. We continue to live on this planet in spite of ourselves, not because of ourselves.

What animals are you talking about? Which ones?

Not every animal's existence is crucial to the survival of the human species. I'm not saying that we should go out killing everything that moves in order to just get it over with, but if they're going to die out, they will. And it's crazy to spend millions on reservations and programs to save a specific breed of duck, or a class of algae! If any animal is THAT important for OUR existence, then put them in a zoo!

You say that a creature on the endangered species list dying is a tragedy for everyone, but what do you think it means when we are killing our own? And almost every abortion is committed (yes, i think they are committed) is gone through with just because the woman was having sex in high school or wants to have a career first, or some other crap.

Any woman killing her unborn baby does not consider it a tragedy. Or else she would not have done it. Socially accepted abortion is a sign of the coming downfall of America. And THIS is a tragedy to everyone.

[And don't accuse me of hating America, or being part of some conspiracy against the government]

[belverron]

Quote by: James And it's crazy to spend millions on reservations and programs to save a specific breed of duck, or a class of algae! If any animal is THAT important for OUR existence, then put them in a zoo!

Well, I largely agree with you, but we need to keep in mind that we have an interest in protecting areas like rainforests, which are supposed to contain untapped resources for medications and such. Perhaps that class of algae will cure cancer. I do think we get ridiculous about it, though.

Quote by: James And almost every abortion is committed (yes, i think they are committed) is gone through with just because the woman was having sex in high school or wants to have a career first, or some other crap.

Not an unreasonable desire, if you ask me. Irresponsible, but not unreasonable. Look at it this way. If a young woman isn't ready to own up to her responsibility, she isn't ready to parent anyway.

Quote by: James Any woman killing her unborn baby does not consider it a tragedy. Or else she would not have done it.

I'm guessing that any mother feels the death of her baby a lot more keenly than you do. Do you weep whenever you hear about an abortion?

I really don't think you've put forth two comparable issues, James. One is about species while the other is about individuals.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: SteveA Well, millions of years is the time frame over which large scale evolutions occur but it takes many millions of tries to get there. As far as I know there are actually new species of animals (especially insects) created almost daily. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. Of course those changes are small and something like a fox wasn't a single lucky random mutation from a beaver but a long chain instead. Yes, we can wipe species out faster than nature creates them but I wanted to point out that people often forget it's not a static system but has new additions on a regular basis as well.

Technically, you could be right. The mutations occur everday, and I'm sure that 99.9% of them are disadvantages to the species or too small for the mutation to have an effect. I said millions of years because of the probability it has for these mutations to produce an adaptable trait, thus creating this "newer" species.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: James Any woman killing her unborn baby does not consider it a tragedy. Or else she would not have done it. Socially accepted abortion is a sign of the coming downfall of America. And THIS is a tragedy to everyone.

At least back the statement up...

Hmm...save own life economically? over, having baby and having to force it into adoption? over, not giving it a chance to live? I'd take the last option in a heartbeat if I knew having a baby would ruin my life because I couldn't afford it. And I wouldn't want other people to raise it either, because it's mine. I suppose most of this is based on opinion, but so much other crap on this thread is too.

[IGX]

Quote by: James Now, I've heard some of you pro-choice people say that they believe unborn babies are alive and human beings, but they have no rights. Alright...

IMO, a human fetus belongs to the mother until it is delivered as a live birth.

Quote by: James Do animals have the right to at least life? If you say they do, then what about unborn animals? If they have rights, then why not unborn people??? :eek:

Animals have no "rights" per se. However, in a decent society animals deserve fair treatment, but their welfare should never be placed above that of mankind.

Quote by: James There are laws against killing bald eagles, but also against stealing or smashing their eggs. Why is that?

"Law" doesn't not necessarily equate with "correct behavior". Today's "laws" are merely the opinions of legislators who bend with popular leanings, as long as they remain the "authority".

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: IGX Animals have no "rights" per se. However, in a decent society animals deserve fair treatment, but their welfare should never be placed above that of mankind.

Yeah, humans have just as much right to be here as animals. Therefore, if we can perform abortions on unborn animals, we can perform abortions on humans.

[Sonart]

Quote by: Soccerfreak He's asking, in general, why we perform abortions to save a potential human life, but why we let people perform abortions on potential animal lives. Good question.

Which I answered. An abortion is a decision about a single potential human life. The future of the human race is not threatened. But in his example, the Bald Eagle, the existance of the species of Bald Eagles was at great risk, so killing an eagle or a pontential eagle is to great a threat.

Like I said... apples and bullfrogs. It's not against the law to destroy pigeon eggs, is it? It's about a threat to an entire species, not a potential individual.

Quote by: belverron That does not mean going to absurd lengths to protect species whose time may simply be up.

Fine... point out an endangered species whose time "is simply up" in the normal order of things, versus species who are being wiped out by human encroachment, pollution or human-induced global warming.

.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: Sonart Which I answered. An abortion is a decision about a single potential human life. The future of the human race is not threatened. But in his example, the Bald Eagle, the existance of the species of Bald Eagles was at great risk, so killing an eagle or a pontential eagle is to great a threat. Like I said... apples and bullfrogs. It's not against the law to destroy pigeon eggs, is it? It's about a threat to an entire species, not a potential individual.

Ok so bald eagles cannot have abortions, I got it. So as long as the individual performing the abortion wouldn't be threatening the population, then it's OK right? Because I agree with you there. There's so many of us, why does it matter?

[belverron]

Quote by: Sonart Fine... point out an endangered species whose time "is simply up" in the normal order of things, versus species who are being wiped out by human encroachment, pollution or human-induced global warming.

Many species are driven to extinction by other species. I don't know what the guidelines should be for protecting a species, but simply because we caused it doesn't automatically make it our responsibility. It's just egotism to assume the role of keepers of the world when we are a part of it as well.

[James]

Quote by: IGX IMO, a human fetus belongs to the mother until it is delivered as a live birth.

Who made the rule saying that a child belongs to a mother?

Quote by: IGX Animals have no "rights" per se. However, in a decent society animals deserve fair treatment, but their welfare should never be placed above that of mankind.

Well, it is. And it's all because of liberal environmentalists.

[belverron]

Quote by: James Who made the rule saying that a child belongs to a mother?

I think it's kind of intuitive, really.

Quote by: James Well, it is. And it's all because of liberal environmentalists.

I really don't think so, sugar. They're trying to look out for a species that's dwindling, soon to be gone and never to appear on this Earth again. You've got to sympathize, even if you, as I, do not agree. And as for things like saving the rainforests, if all the talk of the unexplored medicinal possibilities there is true, we can't afford to let them go. So there are definitely some very worthwhile environmental efforts. Combating global warming and deforestation are at the top of my list, I think. And we definitely need to hunt responsibly when it comes to fish and such, if for no other reason than that we'll need that food supply down the line.

[IGX]

Quote by: James Who made the rule saying that a child belongs to a mother?

That's my objective opinion.

Quote by: James Well, it is. And it's all because of liberal environmentalists.

And Cogressional whores who sell their vote to the highest bidders.

[James]

Quote by: IGX And Cogressional whores who sell their vote to the highest bidders.

Who?
I would never do that. Vote for me if I go for it...

[Sonart]

Quote by: Belverron Many species are driven to extinction by other species.

Traditionally species were driven to extinction for a variety of reasons... changes in the environment, such as ice ages and other climate changes, continental shifts which connected or seperated landmasses, introduction of new predators or competing species, etc. etc.

None of which, with the exception of catastrophic events like asteroid hits, took place within a microscopic time window such as the mere 200 year explosion of industrialized mankind.

Quote by: IGX However, in a decent society animals deserve fair treatment, but their welfare should never be placed above that of mankind.

And what constitutes the "welfare" of mankind? Unending sprawl for the benefit of developers? Ever more pollution in order to maximize shareholders profits, unencumbered by regulations? The delicate pioneer sensibillities of a few ranchers? Pandering to the profitability of traditional resource exploitation rather than innovation?

Human beings have an amazing capacity to adapt and to innovate. Nature has far less of that capacity, as the expanding list of potential global catastrophes that I listed demonstrate. Simple convenience and unfettered profit making does not constitute our welfare. A sustainable world does.

.

.

[Athena]

I am reminded of Easter Island. To everyone's amazement, it was discovered at one time easter Island was forested. The people who lived there depended on the trees to make boats so they could fish for their food. Their way of life resulted in deforestation. They destroyed the forest they needed for making boats, and their own survival resources.

When they could no longer make boats and fish for food, they began eating all the animal life on the island, and when this was gone, they began eating each other. Humanity around the world is headed for the same fate. Soon we will face a mass die off, and those things we take so seriously today, will seem a silly waste of time. We will not have the choice of which environments to protect and which ones to exploit, when the choice is immediate life or death.

[Athena]

Who made the rule saying that a child belongs to a mother?

It is intuitive that the mother cares for the child, only when there is a social organization that supports the mother. When this social organization breaks down, mothers stop caring for their children.

Malnurished babies stop crying and mothers allow the babies to die. Even when the mothers have been told force feeding the baby will keep the baby alive, they allow the babies to die. This has been observed, and I feel anger towards to those who oppose abortion and choose to be ignorant of the unpleasant facts of life. What goes with this desparate condition of life, is women don't want anything to do with the men who can get them pregnant, there is nothing like our family values among primitive people who do not have sufficient resources to sustain their way of life.

Historically, women have practiced infantcide. We should not take mother instinct for granted. Fathers can just walk away. But somehow we judge the mothers, as though she alone were responsible for the life of a child. We are not that far from the chimps.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: Athena I am reminded of Easter Island. To everyone's amazement, it was discovered at one time easter Island was forested. The people who lived there depended on the trees to make boats so they could fish for their food. Their way of life resulted in deforestation. They destroyed the forest they needed for making boats, and their own survival resources. When they could no longer make boats and fish for food, they began eating all the animal life on the island, and when this was gone, they began eating each other. Humanity around the world is headed for the same fate. Soon we will face a mass die off, and those things we take so seriously today, will seem a silly waste of time. We will not have the choice of which environments to protect and which ones to exploit, when the choice is immediate life or death.

During that time we would have evolved into a greater form than we are already in. We use to be grass eaters, humans that is. That was what our appendix was. When we stopped eating grass, it shrank to what it is now.

[IGX]

Quote by: Sonart Traditionally species were driven to extinction for a variety of reasons... changes in the environment, such as ice ages and other climate changes, continental shifts which connected or seperated landmasses, introduction of new predators or competing species, etc. etc. None of which, with the exception of catastrophic events like asteroid hits, took place within a microscopic time window such as the mere 200 year explosion of industrialized mankind. And what constitutes the "welfare" of mankind? Unending sprawl for the benefit of developers? Ever more pollution in order to maximize shareholders profits, unencumbered by regulations? The delicate pioneer sensibillities of a few ranchers? Pandering to the profitability of traditional resource exploitation rather than innovation? Human beings have an amazing capacity to adapt and to innovate. Nature has far less of that capacity, as the expanding list of potential global catastrophes that I listed demonstrate. Simple convenience and unfettered profit making does not constitute our welfare. A sustainable world does.

Can you mention any specific situations?

Politically catering to special interest groups who are anti human progress and anti property rights is what I personally object to.

For example if you have wet lands on your privately owned property, that is deemed to be part of wild life habitat, you are not allowed disturb that area. Also, roads are not allowed to be built through a certain butterfly's habitat, which cost tax payers mucho dinero to build around this insect's sanctuary. And, don't even think about adding this little creature to your butterfly collection, unless you're prepared to face a heavy fine; or, maybe jail time.

Sending Bald Eagle feathers through the mail is a federal crime, regardless of how the sender came by the feather.

A rancher in Texas was ordered to stop grazing his cattle on an area of open range because a rare toad was found to inhabit that land.

There are many ridiculous examples of animal welfare taking precedence over man, for which "government" and misguided environmentalists are responsible.

[James]

Quote by: Athena It is intuitive that the mother cares for the child, only when there is a social organization that supports the mother. When this social organization breaks down, mothers stop caring for their children.

Well, they've already stopped, apparently. That's what this whole conversation is about.

[Sonart]

Quote by: IGX Can you mention any specific situations?

Among those things I pointed to in post #8, was there something not specifically traceable to human activity of one sort or another?

Quote by: IGX Politically catering to special interest groups who are anti human progress and anti property rights is what I personally object to.

Who's anti-human progress? What do you define as progress? Is developing mass fishing technologies to the point where we deplete the oceans of fish progress? Is artificially fertilizing massive tracts of farmland, to the point where the runoff begins destroying life on the continental shelves progress? Is creating useable energy by burning fuels to the point where we alter the very earth's climate progress? Is incrementally destroying the earth we live on progress? The way I see it, progress is learning from the past, understanding how far we can and can't go in stretching the earth's environment, and developing new ways of maintaining the global equilibrium that's sustained life on this planet for eons... and right now we're not doing that.

And property rights? At what point does what you claim as your right to do whatever you chose with your property and what harm you do to the local or global environment conflict? Does your property rights extend to everything downwind? Everything downstream? The surrounding water table? The surrounding environment and micro-climate? Do your property rights permit you to destroy coral reefs hundreds of miles away because of the chemical runoff from your factory farms?

Mankind has reached the point where the special interest of saving the planet from slow destruction is going to have to trump the special interests of making profits from that destruction. That's the new definition of progress.

.