Why are so many vegans "Pro-choice"?
Is the life of an animal more important than the life of a child?
shareThanks for pointing out the irony in the "pro-choice" yet vegan position...
Whether it's animal compassion arguement or the larger environmental arguement, the vegan ideology tends to be self negating... It ultimately comes to denigrating humanity...
For example, the sustainable environment arguement for veganism "tends" to be by people who are concerned for the planet and nature, not in service of humanity, but rather as a victim of humanity... At so many dinner parties I've heard the malthusian comment that "the planet" would be better off with less humans... This is absurd, as the planet only matters to the extent that it provides an environment suitable for us as humans, otherwise who cares?
This is parallelled to the "Pro Choice" arguement, but on a larger scale. With "Pro Choice", the human life of the baby is considered not only less important than the physical life of the mother, but also it is less important than the convenience of the mother's lifestyle, her career, the local government's tax budget for health and education services, her employer, etc... That is absurd.
It's one thing to say, we have to consider aborting a pregnancy to save a mother because it is medically life threatening, quite another arguement to say we should deny a baby's life because we don't want to pay tax for doctors and teachers, or the mother still hasn't done her MBA/Law Degree, etc... Or... Gasp! the mother is poor and the child will grow up poor, as if that makes them less than human... These are very different arguements morally.
People hold contradictory beliefs all the time, especially if they are politically ideological positions, which is what a lot of what is being discussed on this thread as red herrings and to avoid wrestling with the real moral issues that women are doing abortions for the sake of economic convenience and as a lifestyle choice rather than out of medical necessity...
Saying it's the mother's choice, doesn't absolve society of the moral issues
[deleted]
Thanks for sharing your opinion in a mature and sensitive way, even though you disagree with me. I don't say this to patronise you, rather to highlight how different it is from most of this thread. π
I wonder as euthenasia becomes more common, if countries will start offering it to the poor as an option. It doesn't seem inconceivable that materialistic societies would take that view. If anything it is a less controversial issue as people will be chosing it for themselves rather than inflicting it on their unborn children. It seems societies are more prepared to do this, rather than to deal with issues of poverty and economic harship, nevermind recognising the humanity in one another...
People contemplate suicide, wish they were never born and yet do not commit suicide... all the time. De-facto they choose life, for themselves. Including children of rape and uninformed decisions.
[deleted]
Yeah... i think we are closer to one another's ideas than I initially thought. Especially in terms of diagnosing society's problem so to speak.
I have a much better idea of where you are coming from. Thanks π
[deleted]