Abortion - My own thoughts - such as they are

[tzor]

Out of interest, have you read many books on evolutionary theory? I just tend to find that opponents of evolution tend not to have read the things they oppose.

But I'm not an opponent of "evolutionary theory." It's the philosophical points I tend to disagree with. As Obi-Wan said, "In my experience, there's no such thing as luck."

Or as Captain Kirk once said, "Oh, no, no, no, Mr. Spock, we didn't beat the odds; we didn't have a chance. The Organians raided the game."

[tzor]

God of the gaps folk are tiresome. You can't win.

I love that expression, especially since I have come to believe we live in a "rational" universe no larger than Aleph null in dimension which leaves a "real" hyper-universe (or the set of rational and irrational numbers known as Aleph one) of "gaps." ... Anyone remember the very old Dr. Who episode that involved TOMTIT? (Transmission Of Matter Through Interstitial Time) Mind you that episode had a particularly nasty creature living between moments of time.

[Symmetry]

Out of interest, have you read many books on evolutionary theory? I just tend to find that opponents of evolution tend not to have read the things they oppose.

But I'm not an opponent of "evolutionary theory." It's the philosophical points I tend to disagree with. As Obi-Wan said, "In my experience, there's no such thing as luck."

Or as Captain Kirk once said, "Oh, no, no, no, Mr. Spock, we didn't beat the odds; we didn't have a chance. The Organians raided the game."

So you've not read anything, but you like SciF.OK.

[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.

Really? You typed at multiple points in this thread that the costs to the state are a good reason to legalize abortion. If it can be proven that poor people have babies that end up being poor more often than not, and if it can be proven that poor people are a net cost to the state, why wouldn't your argument extend to that area as well?

My argument was about permitting private killing, not a state program of active terminations. The state actively killing people/fetuses carries a much higher social and political cost than merely permitting people to conduct their own private killing.

If it could be demonstrated that the state killing an individual could produce a net benefit to society then I have no argument against the state doing so, so I guess in that sense you are right. I just don't imagine that there are many/any scenarios in which that would be found to be the case.

[thegreekdog]

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.

Really? You typed at multiple points in this thread that the costs to the state are a good reason to legalize abortion. If it can be proven that poor people have babies that end up being poor more often than not, and if it can be proven that poor people are a net cost to the state, why wouldn't your argument extend to that area as well?

My argument was about permitting private killing, not a state program of active terminations. The state actively killing people/fetuses carries a much higher social and political cost than merely permitting people to conduct their own private killing.

If it could be demonstrated that the state killing an individual could produce a net benefit to society then I have no argument against the state doing so, so I guess in that sense you are right. I just don't imagine that there are many/any scenarios in which that would be found to be the case.

Why does it carry a higher social and political cost to have state killings rather than private killings? Again, I'm not China expert, but didn't China prevent the birthing of children to control population and isn't that akin to state killing? I mean, we can quibble if you want on the difference between contraception, abortion, and killing babies, but it seems you are prone to treating these things as having the same moral standard. But if we're talking about population control, this would seem like a pretty smart thing to do.

[tzor]

So you've not read anything, but you like SciF.OK.

I never said that. In fact I never said anything. Ask me in about another 30 years when I'll be able to recall what I did 30 years ago with great accuracy and not recall a single thing from yesterday.

Because, right now, I've forgotten the names of the books I read on evolution. Or the things I have watched.

[mrswdk]

My argument was about permitting private killing, not a state program of active terminations. The state actively killing people/fetuses carries a much higher social and political cost than merely permitting people to conduct their own private killing.

If it could be demonstrated that the state killing an individual could produce a net benefit to society then I have no argument against the state doing so, so I guess in that sense you are right. I just don't imagine that there are many/any scenarios in which that would be found to be the case.

Why does it carry a higher social and political cost to have state killings rather than private killings?

Sorry, maybe I should have been more specific. I'm talking only about private killings of one's own offspring. Killing one's own offspring is still an act of free will, whereas having your offspring killed by the state is something being forced upon you by the government. It's the difference between a woman choosing to have an abortion, or the government taking the woman away and aborting a baby she was planning on keeping. Big difference.

Again, I'm not China expert, but didn't China prevent the birthing of children to control population and isn't that akin to state killing? I mean, we can quibble if you want on the difference between contraception, abortion, and killing babies, but it seems you are prone to treating these things as having the same moral standard. But if we're talking about population control, this would seem like a pretty smart thing to do.

Yup. China still has that birth control policy in place. If people have more children than they're supposed to then they have to pay a fine, and IIRC the extra children don't get their healthcare, education etc. subsidized by the government. Given that China now has an aging population crisis waiting to happen as well as a marked gender imbalance caused by infanticide of girls, it would seem the Family Planning Law hasn't been such a smart idea after all.

[PLAYER57832]

Here is from Websters, since the study of animals being my field doesn't seem to matter to you:

Simply put, sentient means having the ability to have subjective experience.

Feeling pain, for example, is an example of sentience. So you have said that cows do not have the ability to feel pain. If you know anything about animals, you will recognize that this is patently false. And if you know anything about scientific study of animals, you will recognize that this is patently false. I agree that a debate about words isn't important, I just want to make sure you agree that the Descartes view of animals as automata is flat out wrong. I assume you do agree.[/quote]No, I don't agree, but I recognize that it is a current debate.

Also, there is a gradation in animal responses. A fly is not going to be in the same category as a chicken and a chicken is not in the same category as a cow. Whales are probably near the top, closer to humans than any farm animal.

The issue of pain is more important. I firmly believe that animals should be put out with a minimum of pain, none as much as possible. The irony there is that many of those who take issue with various slaughter techniques really don't know what is involved in most. For example, there have been bans on Halal, Kosher and various other slaughtering methods, though a reason these particular methods are required, at least in the case of the Torah and Koran are the fact that these methods cause the least pain.

See, the problem is you want to set up a world where people live in one world, essentially apart from the animals and plants that exist in imagined "pristine" parks (in the biologic sense, not referring to cleanliness).

Why do you think that I believe that? I don't believe that. The bonds between humans and animals can be wonderful. What I advocate is that animals have moral relevance and should be treated accordingly. That doesn't mean the proper response is to stop interacting with them at all; in fact, I think it's the reverse of that. We should be good stewards. Part of being good stewards is not murdering who you're trying to protect just because you like the taste of their flesh.

lol
No, because the reality is that we cannot have lions, bears or even cows as practical pets. We either use these to eat, provide some other benefit or, in the long term, they become expendable. That is the reality. The other idea, that we can simply exist with animals "as our friends" is not real.

Also, if you are not getting these things from animals, then the question is "from where?". Plants can provide some things, but the concept that plants take up less acreage is not true in a PROPERLY managed farming system (which ours is definitely not). In that system, animals are an integral part of crop production and, in some cases, can be produced where crops cannot (specifically very dry areas, poorer soils, etc.). The real answer, particularly when you refer to modern agriculture is that we produce more crops because we use petroleum based fertilizers and other chemicals. Those chemicals have a proven detriment.

In fact this response sounds literally absurd because in the previous post you were arguing that it's a great thing that people are setting up nature reserves for animals to live in, free from human intervention, and now you're criticizing me for the perceived argument that animals should be free from human intervention? What the f*ck are you actually even advocating?

Try again. As noted above, you did miss my real argument. Also, you are just incorrect. Animals in refuges are actively managed. They are not managed like farm animals, but not "left alone" as you imply, either. They are monitored, invasive species are controlled, etc. Parks are the item you are thinking of, perhaps. However, even then, invasive species are generally controlled.

Incidentally, I think that many animals are people. It is not only humans that count as people.

Well, like I said...

That is a belief. It is not one to which I subscribe or find even logical. More importantly, to say that an animal is a "people" and has needs does not mean they should be treated like human beings. Just as an example, if you tried to put a wolf in a house, they would not be happy. (yes, I do acknowledge that many animals have emotions). I put forward that when you try and claim that animals are "people", you begin treating them in ways that degrades them far more than a farmer does.

[PLAYER57832]

Player, have you read much stuff regarding ecotheology? I had an interesting discussion with a Jesuit about it a while ago, but I've lost my notes. He recommended some writers, but I can't recall any of them.

Not by name, but I may have heard some of the arguments? Sounds like something I would be interested in researching and discussing, if not.

[PLAYER57832]

I don't think cows would become extinct if we stopped growing them for food.

About the only animals that are surviving the current die-off are animals we farm or use. The other category are those that have manages to find places to live with us. Things like the Peregrine Falcon, though it must be noted they required assistance to make that leap, or the Norway rat.

However, even if they did: no, it's not unethical to "let a species go extinct" purely on its own merits. What matters is the pain or pleasure of individual beings, not whether "the species" (which is just an abstract concept) exists.

I wish you would really study ecology. Species do not exist alone and cannot just be dropped and replaced. If you don't worry about the demise of individual species, then you find you have no species.. including humanity. Is that really what you wish?

If so, then you have more in common with your stereotypical industrial meat eating abusers than you do with folks like myself.

[mrswdk]

However, even if they did: no, it's not unethical to "let a species go extinct" purely on its own merits. What matters is the pain or pleasure of individual beings, not whether "the species" (which is just an abstract concept) exists.

I wish you would really study ecology. Species do not exist alone and cannot just be dropped and replaced. If you don't worry about the demise of individual species, then you find you have no species.. including humanity. Is that really what you wish?

If so, then you have more in common with your stereotypical industrial meat eating abusers than you do with folks like myself.

Why don't you turn on the Discovery Channel once in a while and watch a program about shark attacks. Sharks eating kids - is that really something you are comfortable with? You're happy for these monsters to thrive?

You're no different to those callous fat cats on Wall Street.

[Metsfanmax]

No, I don't agree, but I recognize that it is a current debate.

It's not a debate; see the link I provided. But a commonsense view of evolution is enough to show how silly the Descartes view is. Evolution does proceed by gradation, so it is bad reasoning to suggest that humans are the first and only species that developed the ability to have subjective experience, without any affirmative evidence for this view.

The issue of pain is more important. I firmly believe that animals should be put out with a minimum of pain, none as much as possible. The irony there is that many of those who take issue with various slaughter techniques really don't know what is involved in most. For example, there have been bans on Halal, Kosher and various other slaughtering methods, though a reason these particular methods are required, at least in the case of the Torah and Koran are the fact that these methods cause the least pain.

Classic religious apology. If you're Jewish, the reason you slaughter the animal that way isn't because it causes the animal the least pain; it's because God tells you to do it that way in the Torah. He gives you no reason why you do it this way; that's just the way it is. It is literally fictional to suggest that the reason it's required is anything other than that. If God had told you to do it a different way, the observant Jews would either be doing it that way, or would have come up with some clever reason why this can be ignored in modern times (like the bits about stoning adulterers).

At any rate, in the real world no one cares about how things are "supposed" to work, we care about how things actually work. And in the real world, kosher/halal slaughter is really not painless at all, and the people who engage in it are morally culpable.

No, because the reality is that we cannot have lions, bears or even cows as practical pets.

I didn't say anything about having any of these animals as pets or being our friends. I said that it is our job to be good stewards.

Also, if you are not getting these things from animals, then the question is "from where?"

From the same place the animals get them. Plants provide all the things that keep the animals we eat alive, and can do the same for us.

Plants can provide some things, but the concept that plants take up less acreage is not true in a PROPERLY managed farming system (which ours is definitely not).

So since we don't have that, why bother making this point? And who are you to determine what a PROPERLY managed farming system is anyway? Who appointed you the queen of agriculture?

More importantly, to say that an animal is a "people" and has needs does not mean they should be treated like human beings.

I didn't say that they should be treated like human beings. I said they shouldn't be murdered because you like the taste of their flesh, or sexually assaulted to continually become pregnant because you like the taste of their bodily secretions.

I wish you would really study ecology. Species do not exist alone and cannot just be dropped and replaced.

I wish you would really study my posts. I said it's ok to let a species go extinct purely on its own merits. As in, the species itself has no intrinsic value. That is an implicit acknowledgement that they can have extrinsic value in terms of biodiversity in ecosystems, and I explicitly stated as much in an earlier post.

I think that you don't contribute much to discussions because you use them to say whatever it is you feel like saying on a subject, not actually carefully considering what your conversation partner is saying and responding to it.

[PLAYER57832]

I mean, obviously if you do think that some being was guiding evolution, you would disagree with that. But anyone who believes that is simply an idiot, and is profoundly misinformed about the way evolution proceeded.

Metsfanmax, if you wish to speak of science, please stick to science! Although a lot of people like to claim that evolution necessarily means no God, no direction, no plan, that is not science, it is an opinion about events science has discovered/studied.

As a point in fact, many scientists have come to God through the study of science and evolution, because the more you study, the more you begin to see that there are very much patterns. You can say they came about from "pure" happenstance, whatever that means (definitely NOT purely random, in the mathematical sense, though!). A Christian would say that evolution is the tool God used to biologically bring about everything, including humanity (though Christians believe that to be human involves more than just physical "biology" -- the spirit absolutely and directly involved God).

I am the one sticking to science, by saying that nothing about evolution requires an explanation regarding a higher power. (Note that I didn't say that the very fact that evolution occurred means that there is no God; if you think that's what I said, read the fucking post carefully next time.) You're the one injecting religion into science; kindly refrain in the future.

No need to flame. Adding expletives does not make your argument more convincing, rather shows lack of culture. The specific point is this.. I absolutely do believe that evolution is guided, and am not an idiot. I do not say that God is required for evolution to happen, but I also firmly dispute your claim that the theory of evolution means God is not involved. The theory is neutral on that point.

Anyway, here is the point where you said the opposite of what you are now claiming Italics added:

I mean, obviously if you do think that some being was guiding evolution, you would disagree with that. But anyone who believes [i]that is simply an idiot, and is profoundly misinformed about the way evolution proceeded.[/i]

Hmm... seems it was the exact quote I already cited in my response.

[Metsfanmax]

The specific point is this.. I absolutely do believe that evolution is guided, and am not an idiot.

Do you have any evidence for the belief that evolution is guided by God? If the answer is no, then you are in fact an idiot. At least on this issue.

[mrswdk]

I didn't say that they should be treated like human beings. I said they shouldn't be murdered because you like the taste of their flesh, or sexually assaulted to continually become pregnant because you like the taste of their bodily secretions.

Technically artificial insemination is not a sexual assault.

This is a sexual assault:

[PLAYER57832]

No, I don't agree, but I recognize that it is a current debate.

It's not a debate; see the link I provided. But a commonsense view of evolution is enough to show how silly the Descartes view is. Evolution does proceed by gradation, so it is bad reasoning to suggest that humans are the first and only species that developed the ability to have subjective experience, without any affirmative evidence for this view.

[sigh] sorry, but basically everything you said is just your opinion, not proven in any way, shape or form. i disagree. I have tried to explain why. You can disagree, but instead you just claim you are right and there is no debate... ?

The issue of pain is more important. I firmly believe that animals should be put out with a minimum of pain, none as much as possible. The irony there is that many of those who take issue with various slaughter techniques really don't know what is involved in most. For example, there have been bans on Halal, Kosher and various other slaughtering methods, though a reason these particular methods are required, at least in the case of the Torah and Koran are the fact that these methods cause the least pain.

Classic religious apology. If you're Jewish, the reason you slaughter the animal that way isn't because it causes the animal the least pain; it's because God tells you to do it that way in the Torah. He gives you no reason why you do it this way; that's just the way it is. It is literally fictional to suggest that the reason it's required is anything other than that. If God had told you to do it a different way, the observant Jews would either be doing it that way, or would have come up with some clever reason why this can be ignored in modern times (like the bits about stoning adulterers).

well, I am not Jewish, so I looked it up to be sure.

Here is what they say at the site, Jewish 101:

The primary principle behind the treatment of animals in Jewish law is preventing tza'ar ba'alei chayim, the suffering of living creatures. Judaism expresses no definitive opinion as to whether animals actually experience physical or psychological pain in the same way that humans do; however, Judaism has always recognized the link between the way a person treats animals and the way a person treats human beings. A person who is cruel to a defenseless animal will undoubtedly be cruel to defenseless people.

That said, it is true that Jews follow Jewish law because "God said it", not because of any reason anthropologists or sociologists might infer/deduce.

At any rate, in the real world no one cares about how things are "supposed" to work, we care about how things actually work. And in the real world, kosher/halal slaughter is really not painless at all, and the people who engage in it are morally culpable.

Not unless you wish to count the rare exception as "the rule". That assertion is often made by folks who want to believe that to be true, but anyone claiming to use science as a backdrop really ought to actually verify his words... and I don't mean by just picking out a few blogs/posts that say that. I mean actually reading the research and looking at whether the research was done independently, if the report is actually backed by real data, etc. If you had, you would find I am correct. This is not my opinion. It is fact.

Although I HAVE done this research in the past, I don't have the time to do it fully now.
Here is what Wikipedia says, just to get you started. Unlike many Wikki articles, this one contains several references that you can investigate.

The practices of handling, restraining, and unstunned slaughter has been criticized by, among others, animal welfare organizations such as Compassion in World Farming.[21] The UK Farm Animal Welfare Council said that the method by which Kosher and Halal meat is produced causes "significant pain and distress" to animals and should be banned.[22] According to FAWC it can take up to two minutes after the incision for cattle to become insensible.[23] Compassion in World Farming also supported the recommendation saying "We believe that the law must be changed to require all animals to be stunned before slaughter."[24][25] The UK government opted not to follow FAWC's recommendations after pressure from religious leaders.[26] The Federation of Veterinarians of Europe has issued a position paper on slaughter without prior stunning, calling it "unacceptable." [27]

Nick Cohen, writing for the New Statesman, discusses research papers collected by Compassion in World Farming which indicate that the animal suffers pain during the process.[28] In 2009, Craig Johnson and colleagues showed that calves that have not been stunned feel pain from the cut in their necks,[29] and they may take at least 10–30 seconds to lose consciousness.[30] This has led to prohibitions against unstunned slaughter in some countries.

Generally these arguments are rejected by the Jewish community, who claim that the method is humane and that criticism is at least partially motivated by antisemitism. A Knesset committee announced (January, 2012) that it would call on European parliaments and the European Union to put a stop to attempts to outlaw kosher slaughter. "The pretext [for this legislation] is preventing cruelty to animals or animal rights – but there is sometimes an element of anti-Semitism and there is a hidden message that Jews are cruel to animals," said Committee Chair MK Danny Danon (Likud).[31]

Studies and experiments cited on orthodox Jewish website Chabbad.org include one conducted in 1994 by Dr. Temple Grandin - an Associate Professor of Animal Science at Colorado and a study completed in 1992 by Dr. Flemming Bager, Head of the Danish Veterinary Laboratory, which showed that when the animals were slaughtered in a comfortable position they appeared to give no resistance and none of the animals attempted to pull away their head. The studies concluded that the animals had no pain and were not even aware that their throats were cut.[32]

Temple Grandin—a leading designer of animal handling systems—gives various research times for loss of consciousness via Kosher and Halal ritual slaughter and elaborates on what parts of the process she finds may or may not be cause for concern.[33][34] Grandin observes that the way animals are handled and restrained prior to slaughter likely has a greater impact on their welfare than whether or not they are stunned. For this reason, "under the leadership of Grandin, research into animal welfare during slaughter has shifted away from examination of different techniques of stunning to a focus on auditing the performance actual slaughter plants operating under commercial conditions." [35]

]No, because the reality is that we cannot have lions, bears or even cows as practical pets.

I didn't say anything about having any of these animals as pets or being our friends. I said that it is our job to be good stewards.

No, you actually said live alongside.

Also, if you are not getting these things from animals, then the question is "from where?"

From the same place the animals get them. Plants provide all the things that keep the animals we eat alive, and can do the same for us.

Plants can provide some things, but the concept that plants take up less acreage is not true in a PROPERLY managed farming system (which ours is definitely not).

So since we don't have that, why bother making this point? And who are you to determine what a PROPERLY managed farming system is anyway? Who appointed you the queen of agriculture?

lol
Actually, we do know what proper farming is, and I have written about it before. You cut out the part where I explain a big part of that above, but anyway. As you me being "queen" --whatever. The truth is I do know a fair amount about this. More importantly, it would be nice if you actually looked into things before just deciding that "no one knows".

More importantly, to say that an animal is a "people" and has needs does not mean they should be treated like human beings.

I didn't say that they should be treated like human beings. I said they shouldn't be murdered because you like the taste of their flesh, or sexually assaulted to continually become pregnant because you like the taste of their bodily secretions.

The problem is you are just fine with many things that do result in the murder of animals. That you have not even bothered to investigate what I have said before stating I am just wrong is concerning.

I wish you would really study ecology. Species do not exist alone and cannot just be dropped and replaced.

I wish you would really study my posts. I said it's ok to let a species go extinct purely on its own merits. As in, the species itself has no intrinsic value. That is an implicit acknowledgement that they can have extrinsic value in terms of biodiversity in ecosystems, and I explicitly stated as much in an earlier post.

Uh, no, if a species itself has no intrinsic value, then it pretty much means it has no value at all, including to the ecosystem.

Also the "purely on its own merits" is an irrelevant argument in the case of what I said, because the fact is humans are actively causing mass extinctions, and not because we are eating cows. Cows, "strangely" enough are in no danger of demise.

I think that you don't contribute much to discussions because you use them to say whatever it is you feel like saying on a subject, not actually carefully considering what your conversation partner is saying and responding to it.

Then again,it could be because I disagree firmly with many things so many of you consider "indisputable" and raise points that differ from the response you expect.

To reiterate, my basic point is that while you claim some "higher ground" by not eating the "flesh of animals", I argue that you are quite likely causing more harm through those very actions and through other activities you pursue. That last is opinion, however the idea that eating plants is not automatically better for the environment than a diet including animals is a matter of fact.

[Metsfanmax]

[sigh] sorry, but basically everything you said is just your opinion, not proven in any way, shape or form. i disagree. I have tried to explain why. You can disagree, but instead you just claim you are right and there is no debate... ?

If you had actually clicked the link, you would have seen that this is not simply "my opinion" but in fact the overwhelming consensus of scientists who study this. So not only are you flat-out wrong on the content, but you simply asserted that I was providing no evidence despite literally handing it to you in my post. That is so obnoxious that I'm going to stop conversing with you here.

(I skimmed the rest of your post, and saw that your evidence against the argument that kosher slaughter is painful comes from (1) Jewish religious authorities and (2) Temple Grandin, so I'm guessing I haven't missed much.)

[thegreekdog]

My argument was about permitting private killing, not a state program of active terminations. The state actively killing people/fetuses carries a much higher social and political cost than merely permitting people to conduct their own private killing.

If it could be demonstrated that the state killing an individual could produce a net benefit to society then I have no argument against the state doing so, so I guess in that sense you are right. I just don't imagine that there are many/any scenarios in which that would be found to be the case.

Why does it carry a higher social and political cost to have state killings rather than private killings?

Sorry, maybe I should have been more specific. I'm talking only about private killings of one's own offspring. Killing one's own offspring is still an act of free will, whereas having your offspring killed by the state is something being forced upon you by the government. It's the difference between a woman choosing to have an abortion, or the government taking the woman away and aborting a baby she was planning on keeping. Big difference.

Again, I'm not China expert, but didn't China prevent the birthing of children to control population and isn't that akin to state killing? I mean, we can quibble if you want on the difference between contraception, abortion, and killing babies, but it seems you are prone to treating these things as having the same moral standard. But if we're talking about population control, this would seem like a pretty smart thing to do.

Yup. China still has that birth control policy in place. If people have more children than they're supposed to then they have to pay a fine, and IIRC the extra children don't get their healthcare, education etc. subsidized by the government. Given that China now has an aging population crisis waiting to happen as well as a marked gender imbalance caused by infanticide of girls, it would seem the Family Planning Law hasn't been such a smart idea after all.

I think you're being inconsistent. On the one hand, you're saying it is not only okay, but smart, for a state to permit killing one's own children. While this is definitely an act of free will (and not the same as state mandated fetus abortions), your argument is that it's a smart and good thing to do that saves the state money. Your argument is not "free will" it's "this is a good thing for the state." My point is that if it's a good thing for the state, who cares about the free will part?

You're also saying that it's okay for a state to outlaw (or fine) people for having too many children. This is definitely an act of restricting free will (whether through fines or not). Again, I don't know how the law works, but let's say Jane gets pregnant with her second or third child. She can have the baby and pay the fine or she can abort the baby. In this instance, is the state not taking away Jane's free will?

[thegreekdog]

[sigh] sorry, but basically everything you said is just your opinion, not proven in any way, shape or form. i disagree. I have tried to explain why. You can disagree, but instead you just claim you are right and there is no debate... ?

If you had actually clicked the link, you would have seen that this is not simply "my opinion" but in fact the overwhelming consensus of scientists who study this. So not only are you flat-out wrong on the content, but you simply asserted that I was providing no evidence despite literally handing it to you in my post. That is so obnoxious that I'm going to stop conversing with you here.

(I skimmed the rest of your post, and saw that your evidence against the argument that kosher slaughter is painful comes from (1) Jewish religious authorities and (2) Temple Grandin, so I'm guessing I haven't missed much.)

If animals want to stop us from killing them, they should do so. If not, f*ck 'em.

[jgordon1111]

[PLAYER57832]

The specific point is this.. I absolutely do believe that evolution is guided, and am not an idiot.

Do you have any evidence for the belief that evolution is guided by God? If the answer is no, then you are in fact an idiot. At least on this issue.

I see... well, when you can provide firm and concrete proof that it is NOT guided by God, we can talk. Until then... you don't have an argument to stand upon.

And you might try looking up the difference between "belief" and "fact" before you start to make such claims. See, I never said it was proven or a fact. I quite clearly said it was my belief.

[PLAYER57832]

[sigh] sorry, but basically everything you said is just your opinion, not proven in any way, shape or form. i disagree. I have tried to explain why. You can disagree, but instead you just claim you are right and there is no debate... ?

If you had actually clicked the link, you would have seen that this is not simply "my opinion" but in fact the overwhelming consensus of scientists who study this. So not only are you flat-out wrong on the content, but you simply asserted that I was providing no evidence despite literally handing it to you in my post.

LOL
Here is an analysis (since you don't seem to think its possible for people to read what you have read and to disagree)
First of all, this is really a debate of semantics. You begin with a flawed definition. I showed you what Websters said.
The issue here is really if we should change the accepted definition of "sentient", to include animals. I stand with those who say "no". I say that because I fundamentally disagree with this trend to modify definitions to suit what are effectively political goals.

What you have referred to as an irrefutable consensus is really an opinion piece about a compilation of studies that show that animals can feel, have other aspects of what we consider consciousness. Most of the scientists in the studies cited, contrary to the assertion the author made actually do not agree with his assertion. He even says as much when he expresses his frustration over it. He does not cite even one study in that opinion piece, so verifying his assertions are not possible without additional information. That said, I actually am familiar with his assertions and some of the contrary debates.. was familiar before you brought that piece up.

If you want to have a real debate in science, you have to go deeper than mere opinion, you have to delve into the studies cited. As noted, there are no studies actually cited. However, as I also said, I have read more than a few studies on the subject. I can say that some animals have emotions. Fish.. not so much, dogs -- absolutely (and yes, pigs too). Even cows and sheep have some emotion. But, to say that they have true sentience entails more than just having feelings of happiness, etc.

Even aside from that, to get back to your original assertion, the important part here is that we need to treat animals with respect and dignity. in the case of slaughter, that means the whole process, not just the means of killing. A LOT of work has been done on this recently. I recognize that you dislike the slaughter of animals. You are entitled to that position. You are, however, not entitled to assert your beliefs as proven, indisputable facts. (and neither is Mark, by-the-way)

Also, akin to the gun control issue, there is a big difference between saying we need to reduce our meat consumption (for a variety of reasons, including ecological reasons). and saying it must stop entirely.

For me, the most basic issue is that animals, in their most natural state, consume each other. It is, "how we were made" (whether you ascribe it to pure happenstance or a higher power). Denying that is to deny not just us, but the animals you purport to want to protect, who they are.

That is so obnoxious that I'm going to stop conversing with you here.

lol... Funny how someone claiming to be objective is getting so irate when faced with true opposition. Perhaps you are not used to being challenged? That, alone is enough to tell me you are no scientist.

(I skimmed the rest of your post, and saw that your evidence against the argument that kosher slaughter is painful comes from (1) Jewish religious authorities and (2) Temple Grandin, so I'm guessing I haven't missed much.)

There actually were several conflicting ideas presented, each side duly referenced... and I specifically stated that was just a "starting point" for you to research it on your own. Then again, why would you bother researching, it might force you to change your position!

[Metsfanmax]

The specific point is this.. I absolutely do believe that evolution is guided, and am not an idiot.

Do you have any evidence for the belief that evolution is guided by God? If the answer is no, then you are in fact an idiot. At least on this issue.

I see... well, when you can provide firm and concrete proof that it is NOT guided by God, we can talk.

I also can't provide you with firm and concrete proof that Bertrand Russell is not in fact floating in space drinking from a teapot, so I suppose you think that he had something to do with guiding evolution too?

Funny how someone claiming to be objective is getting so irate when faced with true opposition.

The only thing you ever do when a subject comes up is to say "I read a lot about this once, but I can't be bothered to pull up the studies now." That's not "true opposition," it's just some random person on the internet spouting off. I have better things to do with my time than converse with someone whose main method of argumentation is "that's just your opinion, now here's the real fact that I happen to know, just trust me because I've researched this before."

Perhaps you are not used to being challenged? That, alone is enough to tell me you are no scientist.

Fortunately for me, my dissertation advisor has not yet discovered this about me and so far I'm safely on track to connive my way into a PhD this coming summer.

He does not cite even one study in that opinion piece

Did you know, that when a piece of text is highlighted in a different color from other text, that it is often actually a hyperlink? And that you can click on this hyperlink to find the source of the claim the author is making? The internet is a magical place, I admit, but you'll find your place in it soon, PLAYER, I just know it.

[mrswdk]

Perhaps you are not used to being challenged? That, alone is enough to tell me you are no scientist.

Fortunately for me, my dissertation advisor has not yet discovered this about me and so far I'm safely on track to connive my way into a PhD this coming summer.

PhD
Doctor of Philosophy

Caught you.

[PLAYER57832]

Perhaps you are not used to being challenged? That, alone is enough to tell me you are no scientist.

Fortunately for me, my dissertation advisor has not yet discovered this about me and so far I'm safely on track to connive my way into a PhD this coming summer.

[sigh]First, yes, I have gotten a bit sarcastic. Tends to happen when someone pulls the old "I have more degrees than you, so am obviously an expert and anything you say is garbage" crap. I apologize for my part.


Anyway, you seem to have missed a couple of primary points. Since you like to skim, I have highlighted one key point, but there is more to it than just that point.

See, I am not arguing that fish/cows, etc cannot feel. I argued that this does not make them sentient. That is a matter of definition, not value. I posted a standard definition to show that what I was saying is not, as you claimed, a misunderstanding on my part. It is a disagreement. I also pretty clearly indicated I was aware of this by saying not just that I disagreed, but why. Specifically, I plain dislike attempts by many in the so-called "animal rights" movement to change definitions for political means. Actually I am against ANY change of definitions to suit politics. Doing so is nothing more than a dishonest "bait and switch" tactic. Sadly, it works, but that does not mean its right.

However, instead of even asking why I might disagree, you continued to harp on my "not understanding" because, in your narrow world you feel you have the right to decide that your being a PhD candidate automatically makes you more intelligent and knowledgeable than me, and proceeding to "instruct" me in animal behaviors, why they really do think, etc. The thing is, again, I never disagreed with that, I just disagreed those things were enough to change the definition of sentient to include farm animals. This is ALSO the reason why that opinion piece is just plain wrong. See, he claimed that 2,500 documents supported his position. The truth is that there are many behavioral studies that suggest animals are (essentially) not mindless robots. Fine.. I agree that animals think and feel to some extent. Any farmer with sense agrees. Its actually part of why they get into the field. However, to go from that to insisting it means we declare animals sentient is ridiculous. And THAT is not supported by the research, not at all. It is opinion.

Now, I would go further and say that this opinion is not just one I disagree with, it is actually harmful to the animals themselves? Why? Because when you anthropomorphize animals you are not boosting them for what they are, you are making the claim that they have to be appreciated because they are "like us". I feel animals are animals.. and to be respected as such. Mrs, ironically enough, made that point in part with the post on sharks. When you begin to say that animals need respect because they love and feel, then you also open the door to saying that other animals are evil because they kill. I find it as objectionable as people who want to dress their poodles up in fancy clothes and jewelry -- though those are purely domesticated animals that cannot really survive without humans. This is why I made the comment about lions.

It is also why I said what I did about slaughter and habitat. Despite your claim that "nobody knows", the real truth is that animals are dying from habitat loss and pollution, not so much from people eating animals.


As to the piece you cited-- It was an opinion piece and you presented it as fact. Also, he misrepresented the citations. The articles he cited do show that animals can feel, etc more (perhaps) than many thought before. BUT, when he said that they all say this means animals are sentient, then he was not just wrong, but misrepresenting the research. It does not matter how many articles he cited, because they don't prove his point. in this case, I am actually somewhat familiar with both the debate and research. His claim that all those researchers support his claim is just plain a lie. Legitimate scientists don't need to lie.


So, in short.. how about looking at the points I actually debated instead of the ones you expected me to bring up.? You might not agree, but it will at least make you think more thoroughly.


Or, to put it another way:
If Bill Devall could not convince me, do you think you can? (and actually Bill Devall is one of those who would most definitely agree with me on habitat loss bit, though he absolutely does not eat animals).

PS, I have learned far more listening to old farmers and fishermen than PhDs.. and smart PhDs recognize the same.