I don't see them in the same light at all because, like most of your arguments, it is the glowing light of a red herring.
I am having steak for supper though.
I am having steak for supper though.
Abortion
- Thread starter Canadian Dragon
- Start date
RB,
Both groups want to prevent the killing of what they deem as innocent live or in PETA's case the use of animals for the purpose of humans.
Perhaps as a group this forum should be just as loud against PETA as you are against the pro-life movement.
You claim that my arguement is a "red herring", could you please point out the flaw in my logic?
Both groups want to prevent the killing of what they deem as innocent live or in PETA's case the use of animals for the purpose of humans.
Perhaps as a group this forum should be just as loud against PETA as you are against the pro-life movement.
You claim that my arguement is a "red herring", could you please point out the flaw in my logic?
PETA has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but you assume because many of the people here lean to the left that there are many PETA members. There may or may not be, I don't care.
You are introducing a different subject in an effort to muddy the arguments. Abortion is abortion. The way we treat animals, however questionable, is not abortion.
You are introducing a different subject in an effort to muddy the arguments. Abortion is abortion. The way we treat animals, however questionable, is not abortion.
RB,
People in this thread have been bashing me and others, saying that we want to take away choice and want to impose our moral beliefs onto others, etc.
The correlation I'm making is that the PETA group does exactly the same thing with regards to animals, and your right, I'm suspecting that there are a large number of animal rights activists on this site and want to draw their attention to the fact that if they don't have any problem with PETA then they shouldn't have any problem with pro-life actions. (Even if we can't agree on the motivation of the pro-life people).
The pro-abortion people see it as a rights-removal and imposition of moral beliefs, I'm not saying I agree, but if that is the point their making, please show me how their views with regards to animals and our laws(if their animal rights people) and how they differ from those views of pro-life people.
As for "muddying the water", I don;t believe it is because it is trying to see if the people on this forum have hippocritical view of pro-life people when they hold the exact same view with regards to animal rights.
As for animal rights have nothing to do with abortion, in this context, I believe it has a great deal of relevance. The actions are completely different but the beliefs of the individuals are very much similar and have a great deal in common.
People in this thread have been bashing me and others, saying that we want to take away choice and want to impose our moral beliefs onto others, etc.
The correlation I'm making is that the PETA group does exactly the same thing with regards to animals, and your right, I'm suspecting that there are a large number of animal rights activists on this site and want to draw their attention to the fact that if they don't have any problem with PETA then they shouldn't have any problem with pro-life actions. (Even if we can't agree on the motivation of the pro-life people).
The pro-abortion people see it as a rights-removal and imposition of moral beliefs, I'm not saying I agree, but if that is the point their making, please show me how their views with regards to animals and our laws(if their animal rights people) and how they differ from those views of pro-life people.
As for "muddying the water", I don;t believe it is because it is trying to see if the people on this forum have hippocritical view of pro-life people when they hold the exact same view with regards to animal rights.
As for animal rights have nothing to do with abortion, in this context, I believe it has a great deal of relevance. The actions are completely different but the beliefs of the individuals are very much similar and have a great deal in common.
Cool. One of our cats was supposed to have an abortion at the same time we got her fixed. It turned out she was just severely constipated from living on garbage though.
Ever notice that "free" pets end up costing the most?
Ever notice that "free" pets end up costing the most?
Twila,
I think you and I both know that this reference is not in relation to animals having abortions.
The correlation is that PETA doesn't want animals used for domesticated purposes(i.e. pulling plows, etc), for entertainment purposes(circuses, etc) and most certainly not for food. They want the laws to change to impose their views onto the rest of society.
By doing so, the question I ask of the pro-abortion side is: Does this mean that the PETA group are equivalent to the pro-life side when it comes to trying to impose their moral views onto others???
I think you and I both know that this reference is not in relation to animals having abortions.
The correlation is that PETA doesn't want animals used for domesticated purposes(i.e. pulling plows, etc), for entertainment purposes(circuses, etc) and most certainly not for food. They want the laws to change to impose their views onto the rest of society.
By doing so, the question I ask of the pro-abortion side is: Does this mean that the PETA group are equivalent to the pro-life side when it comes to trying to impose their moral views onto others???
PETA is all about awareness. They've tried to make unnecessary suffering illegal. They have not tried to make eating meat illegal.
The difference would be that some want abotion illegal for all people. They are not satisfied with letting others make a choice.
The difference would be that some want abotion illegal for all people. They are not satisfied with letting others make a choice.
Twila,
So far PETA hasn't tried to force the issue with eating meat. However, they certainly want to outlaw animal circuses, the annual seal hunt, the use of fur for clothing, etc.
By doing so, aren't they forcing ALL of us to submit to their views.
In fact, some PETA people have lowered themselves to throwing blood onto people wearing furcoats. Isn't this similar to some "extremist" pro-lifers who do the same to doctors and nurses entering abortion clinics.
You'll come back with pro-lifers try to kill the abortionists. I agree that it is reprehensible for people who claim to be pro-life to try to shoot another human being, however even after saying that, don't some PETA people try to "run" some of the people during the seal hunt??? Or what about the anti-logging people hiding nails and such into trees which have the potential of killing logging workers???? Aren't all these groups the same????
So far PETA hasn't tried to force the issue with eating meat. However, they certainly want to outlaw animal circuses, the annual seal hunt, the use of fur for clothing, etc.
By doing so, aren't they forcing ALL of us to submit to their views.
In fact, some PETA people have lowered themselves to throwing blood onto people wearing furcoats. Isn't this similar to some "extremist" pro-lifers who do the same to doctors and nurses entering abortion clinics.
You'll come back with pro-lifers try to kill the abortionists. I agree that it is reprehensible for people who claim to be pro-life to try to shoot another human being, however even after saying that, don't some PETA people try to "run" some of the people during the seal hunt??? Or what about the anti-logging people hiding nails and such into trees which have the potential of killing logging workers???? Aren't all these groups the same????
They are talking about animals, living. Not fetus animals. If you agree that we humans have the right to abuse animals, well then this discussion will have to end. It's not like abortionists are advocating bring out aborted fetus in a jar and charging a quartre to view.
There are extremists in every group.
Twila,
As stated in earlier posts, the pro-life movement recognizes life to begin at conception and thus should have the same rights as any other human. Whether a person is in the womb, walking the earth or lying in a coma, the pro-life movement believes that all of these lives are equally precious.
The comparison with PETA is to counter the arguement that pro-life people are all about control and pushing their morality onto others. I'm assuming that a large part of this forum is made up of animal rights people and I'm trying to show them that the pro-life movement is no different than the animal rights movement. Different "rights" but same with regards to wanting to change the laws to reflect their viewpoint and impose it onto others.
I find it interesting how when I point out the similarities between the two groups that I'm attacked for it.
In fact, the vast majority of pro-lifers are not radical, blood-throwing, doctor-shooting, in-your-face demonstrators but rather people walking in silence with either placards or silently praying to their God. Whereas the vast majority of people in PETA are the in-you-face demonstrator who also include extremists that throw blood and try to occassionally kill some of the people they feel are trying to hurt animals.
Given those two different groups, I would submit that the animal rights movement is much more radical and dangerous. They want everyone to follow their beliefs and if you don't they will confront you on the street, anyplace, anytime and possible attack you with blood.
As you stated, there are extremists in both groups, but I think we can agree there are much more extremists in the animal rights group than there are in the pro-life movement.
As stated in earlier posts, the pro-life movement recognizes life to begin at conception and thus should have the same rights as any other human. Whether a person is in the womb, walking the earth or lying in a coma, the pro-life movement believes that all of these lives are equally precious.
The comparison with PETA is to counter the arguement that pro-life people are all about control and pushing their morality onto others. I'm assuming that a large part of this forum is made up of animal rights people and I'm trying to show them that the pro-life movement is no different than the animal rights movement. Different "rights" but same with regards to wanting to change the laws to reflect their viewpoint and impose it onto others.
I find it interesting how when I point out the similarities between the two groups that I'm attacked for it.
In fact, the vast majority of pro-lifers are not radical, blood-throwing, doctor-shooting, in-your-face demonstrators but rather people walking in silence with either placards or silently praying to their God. Whereas the vast majority of people in PETA are the in-you-face demonstrator who also include extremists that throw blood and try to occassionally kill some of the people they feel are trying to hurt animals.
Given those two different groups, I would submit that the animal rights movement is much more radical and dangerous. They want everyone to follow their beliefs and if you don't they will confront you on the street, anyplace, anytime and possible attack you with blood.
As you stated, there are extremists in both groups, but I think we can agree there are much more extremists in the animal rights group than there are in the pro-life movement.
I know of no incident where animal rights activits have killed humans to make there point though...
I'd imagine if anti abortionists had to see people walking around wearing baby wraps, or see baby humans clubbed, or watched people being experimented on for make up products they'd also be extremely extreme.
I'd imagine if anti abortionists had to see people walking around wearing baby wraps, or see baby humans clubbed, or watched people being experimented on for make up products they'd also be extremely extreme.
Twila,
As stated in the previous post, "the pro-life movement recognizes life to begin at conception and thus should have the same rights as any other human. Whether a person is in the womb, walking the earth or lying in a coma, the pro-life movement believes that all of these lives are equally precious."
And so when the animal rights see seals being clubbed to death, the pro-life sees the same thing everytime abortion is mentioned. Whenever an animal rights sees animals being experimented on, the pro-life sees the same thing everytime fetal tissue is used for research.
So you see the situations are much more similar then you first thought. I agree that the pro-abortion people don't see the fetus in the same light as the pro-life people, BUT it is the same way with the pro-animal-rights and con-animal-rights sides.
As for extremists, check this out: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1268790,00.html
As for no incident of animal rights activists killing humans, perhaps check out the case of Volkert van der Graaf where among other reasons, one reason he killed a politician because the politician had indicated he may allow fur farms to open.
As stated in the previous post, "the pro-life movement recognizes life to begin at conception and thus should have the same rights as any other human. Whether a person is in the womb, walking the earth or lying in a coma, the pro-life movement believes that all of these lives are equally precious."
And so when the animal rights see seals being clubbed to death, the pro-life sees the same thing everytime abortion is mentioned. Whenever an animal rights sees animals being experimented on, the pro-life sees the same thing everytime fetal tissue is used for research.
So you see the situations are much more similar then you first thought. I agree that the pro-abortion people don't see the fetus in the same light as the pro-life people, BUT it is the same way with the pro-animal-rights and con-animal-rights sides.
As for extremists, check this out: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1268790,00.html
As for no incident of animal rights activists killing humans, perhaps check out the case of Volkert van der Graaf where among other reasons, one reason he killed a politician because the politician had indicated he may allow fur farms to open.
Re: RE: Abortion
Tibear ...You claim you prefer to be called Prolife. I am merely pointing out to make this claim ..what would truly be involved in this statement. To truly be "prolife" you wouldn't advocate the killing of any living creature or lifeform. In actuality you are an anti- abortionist, just as I am a pro-abortionist You have a tendency to avoid the issue or question and then take the forum on a different tangent.
This being said I equate anti-abortionists more to members of ELF than I do PETA. I find the extremists in both groups to be similar in philosophy and in tactics.
zenfisher said:
Tibear ...You claim you prefer to be called Prolife. I am merely pointing out to make this claim ..what would truly be involved in this statement. To truly be "prolife" you wouldn't advocate the killing of any living creature or lifeform. In actuality you are an anti- abortionist, just as I am a pro-abortionist You have a tendency to avoid the issue or question and then take the forum on a different tangent.
This being said I equate anti-abortionists more to members of ELF than I do PETA. I find the extremists in both groups to be similar in philosophy and in tactics.
Zen,
The pro-life movement refers to human life exclusively. It doesn't include any animals, plants, statues, "ora's" or heavenly bodies.
Am I anti-abortion, yes but only because it is a procedure that takes a human life, just as I'm against capital punishment, euthanasia and murder. It has nothing to do with choice but with the fact that an innocent life is taken. If a mother would physically die because of carrying a child to term then the abortion is warranted so in this case, I'm pro-abortion. (But only in this case) Why am I pro-abortion in this case because it would save a life! The pro-life members generally accept this(there are extremists who don't accept it). The reason for choosing the mother's life over the childs is simple the mother already has relationships established and it would cause a greater hardship on the family to loose their mother/spouse rather than losing a sibling or child.
RB, you may roll your eyes, however it does appear that others in this forum are at least able to acknowledge the similarities between the pro-life and animal rights groups. It seems at times that you are completely unwilling or unable to agree with someone that generally has a different view on life than you do. Perhaps you should try to engage in a true debate rather than simply trying to "win" it. It seems to me that when you can't "win" you simply resort to personal attacks or the "eye roll". As I've said before, I enjoy debating with Twila because even though we have differing view points, we never attack each other but question each others position and arguements. AND we are willing to acknowledge when the other has a good point. Even Zen has now acknowledged a point I've made that you've "rolled" your eyes at.
The pro-life movement refers to human life exclusively. It doesn't include any animals, plants, statues, "ora's" or heavenly bodies.
Am I anti-abortion, yes but only because it is a procedure that takes a human life, just as I'm against capital punishment, euthanasia and murder. It has nothing to do with choice but with the fact that an innocent life is taken. If a mother would physically die because of carrying a child to term then the abortion is warranted so in this case, I'm pro-abortion. (But only in this case) Why am I pro-abortion in this case because it would save a life! The pro-life members generally accept this(there are extremists who don't accept it). The reason for choosing the mother's life over the childs is simple the mother already has relationships established and it would cause a greater hardship on the family to loose their mother/spouse rather than losing a sibling or child.
RB, you may roll your eyes, however it does appear that others in this forum are at least able to acknowledge the similarities between the pro-life and animal rights groups. It seems at times that you are completely unwilling or unable to agree with someone that generally has a different view on life than you do. Perhaps you should try to engage in a true debate rather than simply trying to "win" it. It seems to me that when you can't "win" you simply resort to personal attacks or the "eye roll". As I've said before, I enjoy debating with Twila because even though we have differing view points, we never attack each other but question each others position and arguements. AND we are willing to acknowledge when the other has a good point. Even Zen has now acknowledged a point I've made that you've "rolled" your eyes at.