Abortion - My own thoughts - such as they are

[mrswdk]

If you argue the effect is all that matters... what is the effect of killing some 16yo? Not much of one. Kids are killed every day and life goes on, the world still turns, and there's no real effect from the "State's" point of view. Does it matter if the 16yo was a well educated, high IQ individual... versus an uneducated drug addict? By your math it would likely be OK to kill an uneducated drug addict, as that person is likely to continue to be a "burden" on society; whereas a well educated 16yo with good prospects is likely to go on to college and be a "contributing" member of society.

If those are the only factors we take into account then yes.

So you are now taking the position that "the State" should reduce population of "undesirables"?

No. I am taking the position that a well-educated individual with good prospects is of different value to an uneducated drug addict (whatever you mean by drug addict).

You say "if those are the only factors we take into account"... what other factors?

The possibility of rehab, the cost of rehab vs the contribution they might go on to make if rehabilitated, the social impact of leaving them to fend for themselves. There's a whole bunch of stuff

[mrswdk]

I've never heard anyone equate a fetus with a pork chop.

You obviously don't go to the right restaurants. Ever heard of fetus soup?

[mrswdk]

Aw, you're no fun. You're basing your argument for abortion on state costs and then refuse to discuss anything having to do with state costs. I'm not even trying to get into a debate about whether abortion is murder. I just want to talk about whether it makes a difference to your point of view if certain other things were factual. Would your views change if we only aborted poor people's babies? Would your views change if the state didn't have to invest a significant (or any) money?

If the state didn't have to invest any money then yes, that would be different.

Who is the 'we' aborting poor people's babies? Are you talking about some sort of euthanasia/eugenics? I don't see what gain would be made be engaging in such practices.

[/]

Or.. to put it another way, it was hunters that created the wonderful wildlife refuge system here in the US, its farmers that have preserved most of the small microhabitat sections and unique areas bought by the nature conservancies. (National Parks are a tad different, they are living museums)

Why are those things wonderful? Because it feels good to humans that we did it, or because it's actually good for the wildlife living there?

I personally think it could be both, or neither perhaps; a third option if you will, conservation is by utility good in a Malthusian sense. The circle of life and all that, the plants need the animals to be the pollinators, propagators, fertilizers, carbon dioxide producers, and so on, the animals need the plants to produce oxygen, feed them, etc, and the carnivores keep the populations in check so that the herbivores don't consume all the plants. Humans just are not smart enough to replace this system, but by preserving the systems nature already created we delay it from crumbling down on our heads.

We can get utilitarian if you like, but you haven't thought it through very carefully. Other than the initial ethical harm of killing the initial population, if there is one, I don't have an a priori problem with things like eliminating populations or even entire species (aside from their potential effects from the perspective of biodiversity loss). To me, what counts is suffering. And there's a lot of suffering of animals in the wild. By reducing the amount of land there is for wildlife, I think that on balance we could very well be doing a net good thing in terms of reducing suffering in the long run.

Of course, I am not certain of this analysis; it's very complicated. The point is, no one is, including you. On the other hand, I can at least stop engaging in the harms I am certain I am engaging in, and then as society becomes more educated on the harms of various agricultural and industrial practices, work to stop engaging in the harms we then recognize we are engaging in.

Why do you feel that suffering is a bad thing? It is simply a mechanical function, a warning gauge evolved for the purpose of self preservation. Denying the need for the being simply to avoid the function from occurring is putting the cart before the horse on a bizarro-world level. It's logically incomprehensible.

Of course I would prevent my own suffering, that is my function. Of course I would cooperate to prevent another's suffering if they would in turn support me, that's just advancing the same goal. It's human nature to pursue the most personal stability for the least amount of personal sacrifice. That's why I personally support methods such as abortion, contraception, abstinence, and social planning. Not just for anyone's rights, though it may be a coincidentally beneficial side effect, but because it indirectly benefits stability, which indirectly benefits me. Supporting the rights of a fetus or an animal is not within that tangible system of cause and effect self benefit.

The sad fact is, we all do need to be lied to and programmed on some level, time and time again we have proven that without the illusion of ethics and morality we will step on anyone and everything to reach the top of the pile. I personally support it; the type of self-defeating altruism that Ayn Rand spoke out against is actually a pretty sweet deal in times of peace. Still on some level it's unhealthy to attach notions of love and value so universally that you anthropomorphize and place unbeneficial things on a pedestal above yourself.

[jimboston]

Sure, some ultra-vegan animal rights nutjobs want to preserve and protect animals... and think eating meat is wrong.
They are entitled to feel that way, but they better not get between me and my ribeye.

I don't think I'm an ultra-vegan animal rights nutjob, or maybe I am, but yeah, eating meat is wrong. And if I had my way, it would be considered a serious crime for you to eat your ribeye. You don't get a personal right to slaughter sentient beings and feast on their corpses just because you don't personally care that they're sentient. That's not how rights work. Unfortunately, the law hasn't caught up to that yet -- but it will, and sooner than most people realize.

Nature > Law

Sorry dude. We have evolved to eat meat. If we had never developed the ability to consume meat our brains would have stopped growing and we wouldn't be able to have this debate.

Yeah, we now have developed techniques to produce get enough protein without meat. We have also developed techniques to make fruits and vegetables taste better. So yeah, I understand we no longer NEED to eat meat. SO WHAT?!

We can also produce offspring without having sex. Does that mean we should give up sex too?

I believe we will likely eat less meat in the future... or at least I should say Americans will likely eat less meat. Not because eating meat is wrong... but because we are not eating too much (generally, as a whole). Eating too much makes us fat and causes cancer... it also contributes to global warming. I understand all this.

Of course too much water and oxygen will also kill you. That doesn't mean we should give up breathing or drinking.
Shitting contributes to global warming too, but we can't give that up.

Animals have been eating other animals since the beginning of life.

Sentience isn't really a good argument either. There is some evidence that plants are sentient. I could make an argument that the Earth is sentient and we are but cells on its' surface... a small part of a whole. You'd have to come up with a definition for what sentience means. If you include cows, you're going to have to include fish and bugs too. Is it OK to us pesticides? Cause if we gave up all meat eating tomorrow we'd have to grow significantly more crops... and that means we'd be killing us some bugs.

Get a clue and think of your position before you open your mouth!

[jimboston]

We can get utilitarian if you like, but you haven't thought it through very carefully. Other than the initial ethical harm of killing the initial population, if there is one, I don't have an a priori problem with things like eliminating populations or even entire species (aside from their potential effects from the perspective of biodiversity loss). To me, what counts is suffering. And there's a lot of suffering of animals in the wild. By reducing the amount of land there is for wildlife, I think that on balance we could very well be doing a net good thing in terms of reducing suffering in the long run.

So you're OK with killing animals, but eating them is bad?

What if we have free-range cows, who are massaged daily, and given some nice sake, so they have a nice life.
Then if it was slaughtered in a humane manner, without trucking it to a central location so it doesn't know what's coming.

Would it be OK to eat that?

KOBE BEEF FOR EVERYONE!

[jimboston]

So basically mrswdk is proposing a world in which the rich make all the rules. mrswdk isn't saying this is the world we already live in... that is an argument that might be made reasonably. This is an argument that mrswdk this SHOULD be.

Am I? You need to stop extrapolating, dude.

No. I don't.

You need to stop making stoopid statements, then I will stop extrapolating those out to their logical conclusions.

[mrswdk]

So basically mrswdk is proposing a world in which the rich make all the rules. mrswdk isn't saying this is the world we already live in... that is an argument that might be made reasonably. This is an argument that mrswdk this SHOULD be.

Am I? You need to stop extrapolating, dude.

No. I don't.

I mean, making wild leap after wild leap and ascribing views to me that I never actually expressed might work if you're trying to score points against me in the eyes of other people, but if if it's a serious discussion you're after then you're going to have to do better.

[jimboston]

If you argue the effect is all that matters... what is the effect of killing some 16yo? Not much of one. Kids are killed every day and life goes on, the world still turns, and there's no real effect from the "State's" point of view. Does it matter if the 16yo was a well educated, high IQ individual... versus an uneducated drug addict? By your math it would likely be OK to kill an uneducated drug addict, as that person is likely to continue to be a "burden" on society; whereas a well educated 16yo with good prospects is likely to go on to college and be a "contributing" member of society.

If those are the only factors we take into account then yes.

So you are now taking the position that "the State" should reduce population of "undesirables"?

No. I am taking the position that a well-educated individual with good prospects is of different value to an uneducated drug addict (whatever you mean by drug addict).

You say "if those are the only factors we take into account"... what other factors?

The possibility of rehab, the cost of rehab vs the contribution they might go on to make if rehabilitated, the social impact of leaving them to fend for themselves. There's a whole bunch of stuff

Right. So ultimately, if "the math" works out that the cost is greater than the potential benefit... then we'd ice them.

So let's come up with a reasonable example. A 20-something dude who is addicted to heroin and never graduated high school. The costs to society are very high here. There's certainly a chance of rehab, but the odds aren't looking good. A quick internet search says 40-60% of "drug addicts" who seek treatment relapse. I feel these stats are from organizations who benefit by showing a higher percentage... and that's only talking about those who seek treatment. Also those stats were for all drugs, not heroin alone, a much more addictive drug. There are no stats obviously for those who never go into a program. So if you factor those in, you're looking at what... maybe 20% ever get clean.

So after years of trying to get clean... 20% do maybe. Yet now if we look at the original group I was talking about; 20something people without highschool educations. What type of value will these people add to society? You're 30, you're a recovering heroin addict with no diploma. How are you going to contribute?

To make "treatment" a viable option in your world, these 20 percent would have to add enough value to society to not only pay back for their own rehab... but also to pay for the wasted rehab efforts of the other 80%!

Nope. YOU WOULD SAY kill them all. amiright?

Course I am.

Otherwise you have to backpeddle from your whole initial point.

[jimboston]

I've never heard anyone equate a fetus with a pork chop.

You obviously don't go to the right restaurants. Ever heard of fetus soup?

Is this supposed to be funny?

[jimboston]

Aw, you're no fun. You're basing your argument for abortion on state costs and then refuse to discuss anything having to do with state costs. I'm not even trying to get into a debate about whether abortion is murder. I just want to talk about whether it makes a difference to your point of view if certain other things were factual. Would your views change if we only aborted poor people's babies? Would your views change if the state didn't have to invest a significant (or any) money?

If the state didn't have to invest any money then yes, that would be different.

Who is the 'we' aborting poor people's babies? Are you talking about some sort of euthanasia/eugenics? I don't see what gain would be made be engaging in such practices.

No? Yet that is the argument you are making.

You are obviously a proponent of a world like that in the novel "Brave New World".

[jimboston]

So basically mrswdk is proposing a world in which the rich make all the rules. mrswdk isn't saying this is the world we already live in... that is an argument that might be made reasonably. This is an argument that mrswdk this SHOULD be.

Am I? You need to stop extrapolating, dude.

No. I don't.

I mean, making wild leap after wild leap and ascribing views to me that I never actually expressed might work if you're trying to score points against me in the eyes of other people, but if if it's a serious discussion you're after then you're going to have to do better.

I don't believe you are capable of this.

Nor do I think my leaps are so wild.

You state a position... I'm extrapolating your position to its' logical next step.

Half of my extrapolations you seem to agree with. So they can't be that wild.

If you want to state a radical position... like "It's OK to kill perfectly healthy infants, so long you don't waste State money in the process." Then I think it's perfectly reasonable for me to try to extrapolate that statement so I can understand exactly what you mean and where you stand.

... and please don't try to tell me that's not a radical position.

[Metsfanmax]

Yeah, we now have developed techniques to produce get enough protein without meat. We have also developed techniques to make fruits and vegetables taste better. So yeah, I understand we no longer NEED to eat meat. SO WHAT?!

So what? So, don't be cruel if there's no good reason to be cruel. This is not advanced moral reasoning. Enjoying the taste of an animal's flesh is not a good reason to cause it harm and kill it.

Sentience isn't really a good argument either. There is some evidence that plants are sentient.

I am aware of approximately zero respected scientific evidence of this. Certainly scientists don't believe that inorganic objects are sentient either.

You'd have to come up with a definition for what sentience means. If you include cows, you're going to have to include fish and bugs too.

A working definition of sentience could be, the ability to feel pain. I do include fish. We don't really understand insects that well, can they feel pain or some analogue? We don't really know. The probability is low, but I wouldn't call it exactly zero. Still, let's focus on the things we can do relatively easily first. It doesn't require that much for people in advanced industrial nations to shift away from eating mammals, birds, and even fish, so let's do that. If there's still suffering after that, we can deal with that then.

Is it OK to us pesticides? Cause if we gave up all meat eating tomorrow we'd have to grow significantly more crops...

No, we would not. Something like half of all crops grown today are grown to feed animals so that we can later eat them. We'd need a lot less agriculture if we stopped eating meat.

[jimboston]

Yeah, we now have developed techniques to produce get enough protein without meat. We have also developed techniques to make fruits and vegetables taste better. So yeah, I understand we no longer NEED to eat meat. SO WHAT?!

So what? So, don't be cruel if there's no good reason to be cruel. This is not advanced moral reasoning. Enjoying the taste of an animal's flesh is not a good reason to cause it harm and kill it.

I'm not a fan of cruelty towards animals, but I think we'd have to define cruelty to have a good argument about this.

That said, nature disagree's with your comment about enjoying animal flesh not being a good enough reason to kill animals.
It's the most valid reason... and nature has given us taste buds that enjoy animal flesh SO THAT we would make the efforts to eat animals; thereby getting the protein.

Sentience isn't really a good argument either. There is some evidence that plants are sentient.

I am aware of approximately zero respected scientific evidence of this. Certainly scientists don't believe that inorganic objects are sentient either.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/th ... e-sentient

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... n-internet

http://goodnature.nathab.com/research-s ... cordingly/

I said some evidence. I didn't say "proven fact".

You'd have to come up with a definition for what sentience means. If you include cows, you're going to have to include fish and bugs too.

A working definition of sentience could be, the ability to feel pain. I do include fish. We don't really understand insects that well, can they feel pain or some analogue? We don't really know. The probability is low, but I wouldn't call it exactly zero. Still, let's focus on the things we can do relatively easily first. It doesn't require that much for people in advanced industrial nations to shift away from eating mammals, birds, and even fish, so let's do that. If there's still suffering after that, we can deal with that then.

http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-01-09/n ... out-plants

http://www.smithsonianchannel.com/video ... pain/12151

There's a LOT of evidence that plants respond to pain stimuli. If this is the barrier to define sentience, then you just lost your own argument to yourself.

... oh yeah, and it would require major changes in how we live if we were to switch to 100% plant / 0% animal protein.

Is it OK to us pesticides? Cause if we gave up all meat eating tomorrow we'd have to grow significantly more crops...

No, we would not. Something like half of all crops grown today are grown to feed animals so that we can later eat them. We'd need a lot less agriculture if we stopped eating meat.

The types of plants / vegetables that we eat are vastly different than those consumed by animals. Over the long haul we might use less land, but that land would have to be cultivated differently. We'd grown plants more susceptible to insect infestations. Much of the vegetation consumed by animals are simple grasses / weeds that can grown with very little pesticide use.

Regardless you avoided the question. Is it OK to kill bugs? Yes or no?

What if science advances to the point that the vast majority of scientists believe insects are sentient? Would we then have to discontinue the use of pesticides?

What if science advances to the point that the vast majority of scientists believe that plants are sentient? What the f*ck would we eat then?

[tzor]

I don't believe this topic on abortion should be overtaken by meat eaters, abortion and meat eaters shouldn't even be in the same ball game. More people in the world eat meat than kill their kids, meat eaters are common, kid killers aren't. This thread isn't even about abortion anymore, its turned into " Who should have the right to kill children?? That's whats so screwed up, its not about abortion rights anymore, its about the right to kill children???? Where are we people??? Tell me I'm either on Candid camera and yas got me, OR I've stepped into bizzaro world???

Welcome to Conquer Club Honestly, I'm surprised that this has gone on as civilly as it has. Even the off topics are serious discussions and not just some prank spam messages.

[Metsfanmax]

I'm not a fan of cruelty towards animals, but I think we'd have to define cruelty to have a good argument about this.

Sure, if we wanted to have a good argument about it. But we don't need to get that far. The way we raise the vast majority of animals for food right now is cruel by any common definition of the word. We fatten animals up way past the state they are biologically prepared to handle, making them unable to take care of themselves, and lock them in cages that are sometimes so small that the animal cannot even turn around. The bottom line is this: you would never treat your dog the way that the cow that provided your hamburger got treated. You would probably be horrified by someone else treating their own dog that way. So why don't cows and pigs get similar concern?

That said, nature disagree's with your comment about enjoying animal flesh not being a good enough reason to kill animals.
It's the most valid reason... and nature has given us taste buds that enjoy animal flesh SO THAT we would make the efforts to eat animals; thereby getting the protein.

It is not super important what is natural. What matters is what is ethical.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/th ... e-sentient

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... n-internet

http://goodnature.nathab.com/research-s ... cordingly/

I am aware of this, but these people are on the fringes of science, not in the mainstream, and these are showing evidence that plants might have some of the things that are necessary to feel pain, which is different from having subjective experience of the same. Evidence of the former is not evidence of the latter.

Also, if you care about plants feeling pain, you should sure as hell care about animals feeling pain.

http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-01-09/n ... out-plants

http://www.smithsonianchannel.com/video ... pain/12151

There's a LOT of evidence that plants respond to pain stimuli.

No, there's a lot of evidence that plants respond to stimuli. Pain is a very specific mechanism that refers to having subjective experience and some level of consciousness.

... oh yeah, and it would require major changes in how we live if we were to switch to 100% plant / 0% animal protein.

It would require changes, but I'm not sure about major changes. I eat only plant-based proteins and I can get all of the food I eat at the local supermarket. Even plant-based replacements for foods like pizza and ice cream.

The types of plants / vegetables that we eat are vastly different than those consumed by animals. Over the long haul we might use less land, but that land would have to be cultivated differently. We'd grown plants more susceptible to insect infestations. Much of the vegetation consumed by animals are simple grasses / weeds that can grown with very little pesticide use.

There is a lot of truth to this, but it's nevertheless true that on net, we'd save a lot of resources by not growing food for animals.

Regardless you avoided the question. Is it OK to kill bugs? Yes or no?

I don't know. It depends on whether insects feel pain, and thus have moral relevance. Since modern science doesn't have the answer to that question, how can I possibly have it?

If you put a gun to my head and forced me to answer, I'd certainly guess that insects don't feel pain. But I'm not certain. The issue is that given the number of insects that are alive, you'd need to be certain to way more than 1 part in a trillion that insects don't feel pain, for them to be ignored.

What if science advances to the point that the vast majority of scientists believe insects are sentient? Would we then have to discontinue the use of pesticides?

What if science advances to the point that the vast majority of scientists believe that plants are sentient? What the f*ck would we eat then?

These are important questions, and again I don't have the answers to them. All I know is that if it concerns you that plants and insects feel pain, it should concern you at least as much (if not more) that mammals, birds, and fish do.

Maybe one day we'll be able to synthesize amino acids from inorganic materials, and then get to the point where we don't have to grow food at all in order to maintain sustenance. Who knows? I can't plan out the next several centuries. I see something now that I know is wrong, and I'm speaking up about it.

[mrswdk]

If you argue the effect is all that matters... what is the effect of killing some 16yo? Not much of one. Kids are killed every day and life goes on, the world still turns, and there's no real effect from the "State's" point of view. Does it matter if the 16yo was a well educated, high IQ individual... versus an uneducated drug addict? By your math it would likely be OK to kill an uneducated drug addict, as that person is likely to continue to be a "burden" on society; whereas a well educated 16yo with good prospects is likely to go on to college and be a "contributing" member of society.

If those are the only factors we take into account then yes.

So you are now taking the position that "the State" should reduce population of "undesirables"?

No. I am taking the position that a well-educated individual with good prospects is of different value to an uneducated drug addict (whatever you mean by drug addict).

You say "if those are the only factors we take into account"... what other factors?

The possibility of rehab, the cost of rehab vs the contribution they might go on to make if rehabilitated, the social impact of leaving them to fend for themselves. There's a whole bunch of stuff

Right. So ultimately, if "the math" works out that the cost is greater than the potential benefit... then we'd ice them.

That's a big 'if'. And in any case we're talking about people terminating their own children - I never said the state should actively cull members of society it judges to be negative impact individuals. I am not entirely sure it would ever be worth trying to implement such a program anyway (although of course, some countries such as the US and China do judge it be worthwhile to have such a system in place for criminals).

[mrswdk]

I've never heard anyone equate a fetus with a pork chop.

You obviously don't go to the right restaurants. Ever heard of fetus soup?

Is this supposed to be funny?

I have heard of people eating fetus soup in China. I imagine it happens elsewhere too.

[mrswdk]

If you want to state a radical position... like "It's OK to kill perfectly healthy infants, so long you don't waste State money in the process." Then I think it's perfectly reasonable for me to try to extrapolate that statement so I can understand exactly what you mean and where you stand.

... and please don't try to tell me that's not a radical position.

I would agree that my original position is not a commonly held one, although you are still misrepresenting it a little.

[jimboston]

I'm not a fan of cruelty towards animals, but I think we'd have to define cruelty to have a good argument about this.

Sure, if we wanted to have a good argument about it. But we don't need to get that far. The way we raise the vast majority of animals for food right now is cruel by any common definition of the word. We fatten animals up way past the state they are biologically prepared to handle, making them unable to take care of themselves, and lock them in cages that are sometimes so small that the animal cannot even turn around. The bottom line is this: you would never treat your dog the way that the cow that provided your hamburger got treated. You would probably be horrified by someone else treating their own dog that way. So why don't cows and pigs get similar concern?

So are you changing your argument???

Are you opposed to eating animals because killing is wrong... OR... is it because the current method of mass-producing animals for consumption in the modern world is cruel? Or are you opposed to it for both reasons?

Those are two very distinct reasons. You can't state your opposition based on Reason A; then flip-flop to Reason B when I provide a counter argument to Reason A. If you have multiple reasons please be clear about it up front so I know what reason I am arguing against.

If it's because the current method of production is cruel... then you wouldn't be opposed to hunting for food, nor would you be opposed to livestock methods like those used for Kobe Beef.

That said, nature disagree's with your comment about enjoying animal flesh not being a good enough reason to kill animals. It's the most valid reason... and nature has given us taste buds that enjoy animal flesh SO THAT we would make the efforts to eat animals; thereby getting the protein.

It is not super important what is natural. What matters is what is ethical.

So nature is unethical?

Lions in the wild live an unethical life?

How can a natural prerogative be unethical? I don't buy it. We evolved to eat meat.

God/Supreme Being/Universal Karma has let/helped/guided us on our evolution... and now after millions of years "telling" us (by providing a biological imperative) to eat meat... we now have reached a stage where eating meat in unethical?

(Unless you don't believe in evolution... then that's another debate, that I can't have with you... as anyone who denies evolution is simply an idiot.)

I am aware of this, but these people are on the fringes of science, not in the mainstream, and these are showing evidence that plants might have some of the things that are necessary to feel pain, which is different from having subjective experience of the same. Evidence of the former is not evidence of the latter.

If an entity reacts to pain stimuli, then it's reacting to pain. If it's reacting to pain, then it "feels" pain. How can you pretend to understand how a plant "thinks or feels"??? These plants are reacting to something. Is it simply an "instinct"? What is the difference between an "instinctive reaction" and a "reaction to a subjective experience". Just by definition of the word "subjective" you are losing this argument. The simple fact is that the life "experience" of a plant is subjective to the plant. You can't comprehend its' existence any better than it could comprehend yours.

Also, if you care about plants feeling pain, you should sure as hell care about animals feeling pain.

I don't care about plants. I love me some salad; especially while I'm enjoying a nice ribeye.

I am simply pointing out the fact that plants are living entities. If it's wrong to kill animals to eat; why then is it not wrong to kill plants? How are the life experiences of animals any different than the life experiences of plants? There's NO FUCKING WAY that you could know. You can speculate... that's all. You empathize with animals because (from an evolutionary /biological standpoint) you are closer to them and perhaps understand their experience better than you can understand the experience of a plant. That's just projection though; because you cant understand how either really feels or thinks.

There's a LOT of evidence that plants respond to pain stimuli.

No, there's a lot of evidence that plants respond to stimuli. Pain is a very specific mechanism that refers to having subjective experience and some level of consciousness.

Why? How do you know plants aren't "feeling" pain? If they were not feeling pain, why would they respond? Why would they pull back or grow away from pain sources?

... oh yeah, and it would require major changes in how we live if we were to switch to 100% plant / 0% animal protein.

It would require changes, but I'm not sure about major changes. I eat only plant-based proteins and I can get all of the food I eat at the local supermarket. Even plant-based replacements for foods like pizza and ice cream.

Individuals can do this sure... if it were scaled up to include EVERYONE then yes, major changes. A quick google search says 3.2% of the US population are vegetarians; and 0.5% are vegans. Do you truly think that changing the diet of 97% of the population wouldn't require major changes in our infrastructure? If so I have to stop talking to you... because I can only argue with one idiot at a time, and mrswsk is filling that role currently.

Regardless you avoided the question. Is it OK to kill bugs? Yes or no?

I don't know. It depends on whether insects feel pain, and thus have moral relevance. Since modern science doesn't have the answer to that question, how can I possibly have it?

If you put a gun to my head and forced me to answer, I'd certainly guess that insects don't feel pain. But I'm not certain. The issue is that given the number of insects that are alive, you'd need to be certain to way more than 1 part in a trillion that insects don't feel pain, for them to be ignored.

One part in a trillion? Is that a scientific response? Hahah!

So we should base policy on your guesses now?
We should change our diet and ignore evolutionary prerogatives because your guess tells us so?

What if science advances to the point that the vast majority of scientists believe insects are sentient? Would we then have to discontinue the use of pesticides?

What if science advances to the point that the vast majority of scientists believe that plants are sentient? What the f*ck would we eat then?

These are important questions, and again I don't have the answers to them. All I know is that if it concerns you that plants and insects feel pain, it should concern you at least as much (if not more) that mammals, birds, and fish do.

Maybe one day we'll be able to synthesize amino acids from inorganic materials, and then get to the point where we don't have to grow food at all in order to maintain sustenance. Who knows? I can't plan out the next several centuries. I see something now that I know is wrong, and I'm speaking up about it.

1) It doesn't concern me if insects or plants feel pain.
2) These are not important questions... they are dumb questions, presented to you in order to try to show you how absurd your original point of view is.
3) You know killing animals to eat is "wrong"? So YOU have decided that Billions of people since the dawn of mankind have lived unethical lives. including those who live in places where they could not possibly live on a diet of plants. (i.e. Inuit and Yupik in Arctic regions.)

Just for laughs... what should we do with these Arctic natives? I mean if they can't live their indigenous lifestyles because that's unethical... maybe we should make them all move? It's really not logical or sustainable over the long haul to ship tons of plant-based food to the Arctic. How would you solve that problem? Does that create another ethical dilemma?

[jimboston]

That's a big 'if'. And in any case we're talking about people terminating their own children - I never said the state should actively cull members of society it judges to be negative impact individuals. I am not entirely sure it would ever be worth trying to implement such a program anyway (although of course, some countries such as the US and China do judge it be worthwhile to have such a system in place for criminals).

You never said they should "cull members of society". You did say that the State however has the right to decide who can get an abortion and who can't. So if the State has a right to tell a mother NOT to get an abortion, why would it not also have the right to force an abortion?

... and if you can kill an infant... why can't you kill an adult?

You make these statements, that are kinda absurd, and then you object when I take your absurd comments to the next absurd level? If you think it's fine to suggest infanticide is fine; then why is it not fine for me to suggest "addicticide" is fine?

[mrswdk]

That said, nature disagree's with your comment about enjoying animal flesh not being a good enough reason to kill animals. It's the most valid reason... and nature has given us taste buds that enjoy animal flesh SO THAT we would make the efforts to eat animals; thereby getting the protein.

It is not super important what is natural. What matters is what is ethical.

So nature is unethical?

Lions in the wild live an unethical life?

How can a natural prerogative be unethical? I don't buy it. We evolved to eat meat.

Is it therefore ethical for me to kill my boss in order to take his place, because that's the way things go in the wild?

[jimboston]

I've never heard anyone equate a fetus with a pork chop.

You obviously don't go to the right restaurants. Ever heard of fetus soup?

Is this supposed to be funny?

I have heard of people eating fetus soup in China. I imagine it happens elsewhere too.

Snopes.com said it was not true.

http://www.snopes.com/horrors/cannibal/fetus.asp

as sick as some Chinese food looks and tastes; I don't believe that anyone actually does this.

Not as a regular thing... maybe some satanic ritual or some crap like that... but it's not on a menu anywhere.

[mrswdk]

That's a big 'if'. And in any case we're talking about people terminating their own children - I never said the state should actively cull members of society it judges to be negative impact individuals. I am not entirely sure it would ever be worth trying to implement such a program anyway (although of course, some countries such as the US and China do judge it be worthwhile to have such a system in place for criminals).

You never said they should "cull members of society". You did say that the State however has the right to decide who can get an abortion and who can't. So if the State has a right to tell a mother NOT to get an abortion, why would it not also have the right to force an abortion?

Those are two different things. Forcing an abortion goes against the mother's free will and carries a significant social cost with it. That would have to be factored into when weighing up the benefits of terminating vs not terminating.

... and if you can kill an infant... why can't you kill an adult?

Again, you live in a country where the state reserves the right to kill some adults, so whether or not it is okay to kill an adult is not the question. The question is at what point to draw the line.

[tzor]

Sure, if we wanted to have a good argument about it. But we don't need to get that far. The way we raise the vast majority of animals for food right now is cruel by any common definition of the word. We fatten animals up way past the state they are biologically prepared to handle, making them unable to take care of themselves, and lock them in cages that are sometimes so small that the animal cannot even turn around. The bottom line is this: you would never treat your dog the way that the cow that provided your hamburger got treated. You would probably be horrified by someone else treating their own dog that way. So why don't cows and pigs get similar concern?

Yes, but if we break it down the root causes for this are generally the large corporations who want to produce in mass quantities for the lowest cost possible. You also forgot to mention how much pollution that these enormous operations generate, especially in terms of nitrogen runoff into places like the Gulf of Mexico where algae blooms make significant parts of the gulf oxygen free dead zones. (No one has yet told the few remaining anaerobic life forms about this happy paradise).

Small scale tends to be far more humane, but it's a "not in my neighborhood" problem. I don't give a darn about the smell I would do anything for a nice duck farm to raise them near me. I can live without my cow and pig (although I will miss bacon) but duck and lamb I don't think I can manage without.

This does lead to a good and interesting Catholic argument (you were all probably waiting with baited breath for this one) which came, of all places, from an argument on the use of boycotts. Four Reasons Why We Need Boycotts

We are held morally responsible for our personal exercise of purchasing power. As Pope Benedict XVI said, “purchasing is always a moral—and not simply economic—act. Hence the consumer has a specific social responsibility, which goes hand-in-hand with the social responsibility of the enterprise” (Caritas in Veritate, para. 66). Economic prudence, then, does not mean simply the ability to discern and accomplish efficient ways to acquire wealth and be thrifty in our spending. To be prudent in economics means to develop the habit of discerning and carrying out economic practices that are truly good, not merely advantageous, both for ourselves and our communities.

show

And the last line of the spoiler (for those who think it would have been tldr) is key here.

Thinking about our spending in this way sheds light on one of the many moral issues associated with an economy dominated by corporations: we buy things without knowing where they came from, from people we don’t know, and we have no idea what they might be doing with our money.