 |
| |
|
|
lightblue
|
|
L'Boro, UK
Oct 2001
time: 05:34
|
|
When I was doing research, during the animal handling training we got what basically amounted to anti-terrorism training.
How to spot letter bombs, how to open envelopes you thought might contain dirty needles/razor blades, how to check your car for explosives and what to do if you were being followed. All the adresses were hidden from the general public (unlike most other university staff), the animal house itself involved 2 keycards and one of those were you and the security guy have to turn a key at the same time. And this was only mice...
The Animal Liberation Front and its ilk are fairly despicable. I suppose anti-abortionists are similar in their tactics (in the US mainly), with harassment leading to a fringe group that would violence.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
Why should animals have rights anyway?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:34
|
|
quote:
a frozen embryo that is surplus and will not be used, and with prior approval of the parents, i.e. the standards imposed in Britian for harvesting embryonic stem cells, works quite nicely.
|
Suppose I also considered you from the same perspective. If your organs can save the lives of 6 people, why should we allow you to live, since the lives of the 6 are much more useful put together, than the life of one?
Secondly, what is needed to make someone surplus? With the total number of people on the planet, what is stopping someone from considering all of us surplus?
quote:
As a better analogy, if I am brain dead and being kept alive on a ventilator,
|
The problem with this analogy, is that if you are brain dead, no medical treatment will allow you to recover. You are not being artificially prevented from growing and developing, as found in a frozen embryo. A better analogy would be someone temporarily unconscious.
quote:
While you may argue whether the frozen blastulas (the stage if I remember correctly they freeze the developing egg) can give consent, the parents can, and since at that point the blastula cannot develop further - they are surplus and will never be implanted. It's loosely analagous to my being an organ donor, and legally in practically the same, at least in GB.
|
Let me ask you another question. Would a parent be allowed to put their 3 year old child up to donate organs, by giving their consent for the child to donate her organs? Why or why not?
quote:
They are surplus and will never be implanted.
|
Is it through any fault of their own, or are they being artificially prevented from doing so?
quote:
Remember one thing, Ben. Do you want the Catholic Church, Southern Baptist Convention, Mormons, or Muslims, writing our laws and codes of conduct,
|
And what does any of that has to do with the argument that an unborn child is a person from conception onwards? South Dakota recognises such personhood, not on religious grounds, but on secular.
quote:
Beware of tramping on the laws that protect me from your religious beliefs,
|
Again, you must show how this argument has anything to do with religious belief, and not the rejection of utilitarian ethics that reduce all men to their mere functions.
quote:
That's what they said in Germany in the 1930's.
|
No, what they did in Germany, was practice eugenics. And is this not what this is all about? Implanting those embryos that make the cut, while calling all the others 'surplus?' It is a dangerous game to begin, to require anyone to argue for his own life. Particularly, when one is unable to speak.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:34
|
|
quote:
A few instances of fanatics being turned in by pro life proponents as disgusted with them as the rest of us would be a help.
|
If any are found to be a member of our club, or to sympathise with their methods, they will be booted out. It would also be enough to show connections between them and the violent groups to do the same.
They cannot be criminally charged until they actually commit the act, rather than just sympathy, so there is no reason to turn them in.
I agree, that should you know one to be guilty, one ought to turn the fellow in, rather than harbouring him and providing him shelter.
quote:
If there is anything more that rational folk willing to debate the issue in acceptable ways can do to distance themselves from the fanatics it would be as well for that to be done.
|
I would think refusing to allow the person to participate with the club would be a sufficient deterrent, as well as a public condemnation by the prolife groups of these tactics.
The sad thing, is that even with these measures, there will still be a few people who act this way. No different then with the trials of Dr. King with those who wanted violent actions.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sava
|
 |
GO GO GO!
Mar 2001
time: 23:34
|
|
quote:
I didn't really extrapolate, I just wondered outloud how many pro-choice vegitarians also commit such a hypocrisy. I didn't say that most do.
|
Two of my cousins are pro-choice, vegetarian women... (32 and 28 respectively) the younger says (as I've posed the question before) that animal rights IS about suffering and not death. She is a vegetarian because of health reasons (especially now that a Republican de-regulation administration is in office  ) and animal suffering. She says she is against abortion, but it should be her choice, not the government's. 
Plus, an animal is a self-aware lifeform. Fetuses... well... aren't. I don't know about you guys, but I don't remember being aware in the womb. And if I was aborted, I wouldn't have even known or felt it.
Deep down, I still believe the pro-life stance is about a sense of control over women's bodies and not the suffering of unborn fetuses. If pro-lifers were genuinely concerned about the welfare of children, they wouldn't support right-wing social policies. Granted, there are some who do care about child-welfare, but they are few and far between.
The two issues aren't related at all. In fact, I bet more pro-lifers are part of the right-wing anti-animal rights crowd.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:34
|
|
quote:
She says she is against abortion, but it should be her choice, not the government's.
|
So what about ranchers? Shouldn't they be able to kill animals if that is their choice?
quote:
Plus, an animal is a self-aware lifeform. Fetuses... well... aren't.
|
All forms of animal life are self-aware? That's an interesting definition, if you can also reject unborn children.
quote:
I don't know about you guys, but I don't remember being aware in the womb.
|
My earliest memory is when I was three. Does this mean my mom should be able to kill me up until that age?
quote:
And if I was aborted, I wouldn't have even known or felt it.
|
Oh, you would have felt it. The Lancet recommends the use of anaesthetia for the unborn children in an abortion.
quote:
Deep down, I still believe the pro-life stance is about a sense of control over women's bodies and not the suffering of unborn fetuses.
|
And what about the majority of prolifers, whom are women?
quote:
If pro-lifers were genuinely concerned about the welfare of children, they wouldn't support right-wing social policies.
|
Such as no child left behind? I fail to see how such right-wing social policies hurt children.
quote:
The two issues aren't related at all. In fact, I bet more pro-lifers are part of the right-wing anti-animal rights crowd.
|
You are correct, that they are two different issues. However, it still remains for the pro-choice vegetarians to justify why they treat an unborn child worse then they do any other animal.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sava
|
|
GO GO GO!
Mar 2001
time: 23:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So what about ranchers? Shouldn't they be able to kill animals if that is their choice? |
if those animals were inside the ranchers bodies, and not having the right to control their bodies was a threat to their health, then yes. But the two aren't related, as you try to connect them. 
quote:
All forms of animal life are self-aware? That's an interesting definition, if you can also reject unborn children. |
it depends... I'm not going to define which animals are or aren't "self-aware" the point is, there is unwarranted suffering in the case of animal rights, and well, there isn't any (detectable) suffering in abortion. Death does not equal suffering. If anything, abortion is akin to euthenasia.
quote:
My earliest memory is when I was three. Does this mean my mom should be able to kill me up until that age? |
yes... but just you jk 
infanticide has been a part of human civilization longer than marriage... but yet tradition is one of those excuses you use for the gay marriage argument... so which is it? is tradition good or bad... you can't have it both ways.
quote:
Oh, you would have felt it. The Lancet recommends the use of anaesthetia for the unborn children in an abortion. |
fine, then use anaesthesia...
quote:
And what about the majority of prolifers, whom are women? |
they don't have the right to usurp other women's rights either.
quote:
Such as no child left behind? I fail to see how such right-wing social policies hurt children. |
you obviously aren't following how terrible a policy that is... you seem to be failing to see a lot of things then.
quote:
You are correct, that they are two different issues. However, it still remains for the pro-choice vegetarians to justify why they treat an unborn child worse then they do any other animal. |
because an unborn child (except those intended to be born) has little value... plus, if this is about hypocrisy, the right-wing pro-lifers (of which there are MORE of) are much more hypocritical when it comes to child welfare. Once they're out of the womb, righties cease to be "pro-life".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:34
|
|
quote:
and not having the right to control their bodies was a threat to their health,
|
Are most pregnancies a threat to the health of a woman?
Secondly, is the unborn child a part of the mother's body? If so, how does the child become a baby at birth, and distinct from the mother?
quote:
I'm not going to define which animals are or aren't "self-aware" the point is, there is unwarranted suffering in the case of animal rights, and well, there isn't any (detectable) suffering in abortion.
|
Yet,
quote:
fine, then use anaesthesia...
|
So the children do suffer unnecessarily, for the convenience of the mother in an abortion. Seems to me if you believe in animal rights, you should also protect the unborn children.
quote:
infanticide has been a part of human civilization longer than marriage... but yet tradition is one of those excuses you use for the gay marriage argument...
|
Are you defending infanticide, or not, Sava? If not, why not?
Gay marriage has nothing to do with this issue, so please try to keep up, eh?
quote:
is tradition good or bad... you can't have it both ways
|
The tradition has been, at least in Western Society, to value children, not to dispose of them in the trash.
quote:
you seem to be failing to see a lot of things then.
|
Regardless of these other positions, will you agree with me that it should be wrong to kill an innocent person in an abortion?
quote:
because an unborn child (except those intended to be born) has little value
|
Interesting. You prove my very first point in this thread. Liberals believe in constructed worth, and not intrinsic value.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
03-03-2004 17:30
|