Pro Choice or Pro Life?

Yooo... I don't get your point. I'll reiterate and feel free to deconstruct. Apes dispose of offspring. Romans tossed babies in gutters, gorillas murder gorillas babies that don't fit their idea of what a gorilla baby ought to be, babies that would hinder the capacity of a hunter-gatherer tribe to function leave the baby outside to die... Apes kill babies. I simply claimed, 'it seems that it is a behavioral trait of primates to dispose of unwanted babies'. Sorry if I used the wrong word, but with so much evidence (for me) it's really hard to deny that disposing of babies is a trait not linked to apes in general. Human beings are complex with superb tools, and one of our tools allows us to remove an unwanted being from the womb.

Romans were also partaking in incest, and rape. People in general over time evolve as to create a more civil society. We seem to keep straying from the subject at hand.

It seems to be pointing fingers "Well this group in this time frame did it". Are we in that time frame? Are we those people?

Murder is wrong, life begins at conception, and I value human life more then animals.
 
@7 while infanticide in primates is a thing, they are literal born primates that are killed. this is wildly different to killing something unborn (which is an abortion) and calling it natural.
it happens for humans as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_infanticide_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_foeticide_in_India not having ultrasound scannings a few thousand years ago was prob the only reason why the infants werent killed while unborn and seeing as this tradition were in those certain places, common practice, one would argue that they would meet the prerequisite of your definition of "natural"

ok on topic: heres another view at it. say someone wishes to commit suicide. while yes morally, we would be obligated to try and convince them not to, should we in fact have laws that forces us to stop them from choosing what to do with their own life? for me, no. if someone wishes to end their life, then i cannot see how we, as members of soceity have the right to have a say in their decision. how do we know what theyre going through? this is the same principle i apply to the case of abortion. parents are the ones that are best positioned to make choices for their child. if they decide that the life that can be offered to the child is worse than not having one at all, i dont see how i am in a position to know better
 
Let me end this debate.
God made certain animals for mankind to eat.
God made humans to live.
Equating the consumption of a cheeseburger to the abortion of a baby is an abominable argument.
 
7, do you like avocados? No? How about apples? Have you ever eaten an almond before? Surely if it's in your Top 5 nuts. How about watermelon, cucumbers, zucchini?

Congratulations, you have played your part in the exploitation and murder of millions of bees. It is estimated that without migratory beekeeping, the United States would lose 1/3 of its crops. If the bees aren't crushed while being shipped around in a truck all across the country, they are subjected to deprivation, poor living conditions and the spread of disease which leads to colony collapse disorder. So while you're preaching to Dx about eating meat you are just as guilty of being a "speciesist" for eating many fruits, veggies, and nuts. What gives you the right to value the life of a pig over the life of a bee?

That is what I can't stand about so many vegetarians and vegans who try to shame people for eating meat, they are so hypocritical.

I don't blame Dx for valuing human life over the life of any other animal.

We could easily live in peace with bees without exploiting them if humans weren’t greedy trying to make $$$$ over everything creating farm bees who overtake bees.

Also the most key staple foods like rice, corn, wheat, soy and root vegetables along with vegetables that grow in the shade are not pollenated by bees whatsoever.

The main problem on earth is humans in the end. A life is a life regardless whether it’s human or not.

Ps I’m not even a vegan or a vegetarian. I eat meat lol


And yeah, we're not carnivores lol We're 100% omnivores.

Biologically, this is false. We are behaviorally omnivores yes, but we are biologically herbivores.

A cat is biologically 100% carnivore but if you give it Watermelon or certain fruits, it will eat it so it can also behave as an omnivore.

1. Carnivores and omnivores stomachs produce vitamin C so they are not required to eat any fruits or veggies to survive. If humans eat no fruits, they eventually get scurvy and die.

2. Carnivores and omnivores are not subjected to heart disease and blockage meaning they can eat pounds of meat endlessly and nothing will happen. If humans do so, they eventually get blockage in arteries leading to heart attack and stroke.

3. K9 teeth do not mean you’re designed to shred meat. Nearly all mammals have k9 teeth. The bigges k9 teeth belong to an herbivore the hippo. Without them it would be hard to shred into certain plant foods.

4. Carnivores and omnivores have jaws that are designed to crush after they bite into something. They get a hold of a deers neck and crush it to death. If a human tried to do this and bite into a deer, the human would break their jaw.

There are many many more points but yeah.
We may behave as omnivores in a world where our technology provides us a way to avoid predators and live comfortable but we are biologically not omnivores.

As I said I am a meat eater lol but the facts are the facts.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: zen
@TheCriminaL what do you mean by biologically? i suppose it depends on how you define those terms. wiki definition: "Omnivore is an animal that has the ability to eat and survive on both plant and animal matter". by that definition we are omnivore, as we have the ability to digest meat. also if humans ate no meat they would lack b12 vitamin and eventually get anemia which likewise can lead to death
 
@TheCriminaL what do you mean by biologically? i suppose it depends on how you define those terms. wiki definition: "Omnivore is an animal that has the ability to eat and survive on both plant and animal matter". by that definition we are omnivore, as we have the ability to digest meat. also if humans ate no meat they would lack b12 vitamin and eventually get anemia which likewise can lead to death

Big difference between biologically and bahaviorally. By that definition, every single living mammal is omnivore because they can digest both plant and animal products.

We could behave a certain way, eat certain things. Doesn’t mean we were designed to do so.

B12 is a microorganism that can be found in the soil. You could actually get it from plants if humans didn’t wash everything they ate.

Oh wait but we have to because of human mass produced farms and the risk of e.coli.

Well there’s the bigger problem lol
 
Last edited:
This is one of the biggest misconceptions out there. Not referring to you but so many people will be like "Oh pro-life supporters want to ban abortions but don't care about what will happen to the baby after it's born". The truth is that there is literally a gigantic waiting list to adopt babies. There are not enough babies to go around for all the couples that would like to adopt them. So the crutch of "the baby is just going to be neglected" is a total fallacy. If a baby is given up for adoption instead of aborted it is most certainly going to end up with very loving parents.
You going to provide any evidence for this claim? Cause it seems weird to me to have at least half a million kids in foster care when there is such a demand for adopting these kids. I would assume you're referring to adoption agencies alone, which I don't think includes foster care depending on the study. Also I don't understand the assumption that because they didn't want their child, they would put them up for adoption. This would only be true for a proportion of these babies. That is not a decision that is as easy to make as it sounds, and many of these kids will be raised in a household with slight to severe resentment. Explain the number of kids in foster care if this demand is as high as you assert it to be.

Oh you are referring to the food chain? The natural order of life? Yes I am a carnivore, what point were you trying to make exactly?
I can't remember the part of the natural order of life where you pay someone else to take the life of a living creature for you. I've never seen this in nature. I'm pretty confident that carnivores within the natural order of life kill the meal themselves, instead of going to the supermarket. ALSO our ancestors 100% needed to eat meat to survive, but we live in a society now where that is far past necessary. It is a CHOICE that you make, and that you have a right to make, but you can't act as if you're anti-murder when you fund the murder of life everyday. You can claim that you are anti-murder of humans because we are superior to other animals, but that just means you pick and choose which types of life you care about. Besides my instinctual desire for self-preservation, there is no reason to claim that my life is more important the life of my goldfish. It's only selfishness that makes you think that we are superior.

7, do you like avocados? No? How about apples? Have you ever eaten an almond before? Surely if it's in your Top 5 nuts. How about watermelon, cucumbers, zucchini?

Congratulations, you have played your part in the exploitation and murder of millions of bees. It is estimated that without migratory beekeeping, the United States would lose 1/3 of its crops. If the bees aren't crushed while being shipped around in a truck all across the country, they are subjected to deprivation, poor living conditions and the spread of disease which leads to colony collapse disorder. So while you're preaching to Dx about eating meat you are just as guilty of being a "speciesist" for eating many fruits, veggies, and nuts. What gives you the right to value the life of a pig over the life of a bee?
You think I am un-aware of this? You do realize that meat-alternatives are very new to our society and it will take time for it to evolve into a truly non-animal-harming system. You would rather focus on a technicality than the original intention of morality. It's economics my man, it will take time for the market to adjust for the fact that people place monetary VALUE on not harming bees. Once the market adjusts for that, there will be options that do not kill bees like that, but in the mean-time you're saying that I should just say :censored: it to my beliefs because I can't execute them perfectly at this point and time? That's a little far-fetched to me. I still eat eggs, since I am not full vegan, caring for all forms of life doesn't happen overnight. It takes time. What happens to bees is wrong, but seems like an obvious lesser-of-two-evils when you observe the practices of slaughterhouses. By not funding the production of meat, it creates a signal to the market that there is money to be made catering to vegans/vegetarians. Also it's not easy giving up harming animals, it's a process. Some people start by eating less meat per week, instead of cutting it all out. I wouldn't have an issue with them, I would respect their desire to appreciate all forms of life, even if it isn't perfect.

That is what I can't stand about so many vegetarians and vegans who try to shame people for eating meat, they are so hypocritical.
White girls who go vegetarian to tell everyone about it are not indicative of the general population of vegan/vegetarians. I personally never comment on other people eating meat, I only point out the inconsistency in their logic when they say they care about life, when in reality they only care about HUMAN life. And that's only if they use caring about life as a premise in debate. The people who feel the need to let everyone know this stuff make me cringe and create a bad image for those who don't do it for attention.

Let me end this debate.
Equating the consumption of a cheeseburger to the abortion of a baby is an abominable argument.
I think you should let the big boys talk this one out
 
Big difference between biologically and bahaviorally. By that definition, every single living mammal is omnivore because they can digest both plant and animal products.

We could behave a certain way, eat certain things. Doesn’t mean we were designed to do so.

B12 is a microorganism that can be found in the soil. You could actually get it from plants if humans didn’t wash everything they ate.

Oh wait but we have to because of human mass produced farms and the risk of e.coli.

Well there’s the bigger problem lol
hmm i was under the impression that herbivores generally cannot digest meat long term?

b12 is found in soil, yup. so the question is, were we designed to get our b12 by eating meat or by eating dirt
 
Big difference between biologically and bahaviorally. By that definition, every single living mammal is omnivore because they can digest both plant and animal products.

We could behave a certain way, eat certain things. Doesn’t mean we were designed to do so.

B12 is a microorganism that can be found in the soil. You could actually get it from plants if humans didn’t wash everything they ate.

Oh wait but we have to because of human mass produced farms and the risk of e.coli.

Well there’s the bigger problem lol
What's your source?
Quick google search implies we're omnivores (or at least evolved into omnivores): https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/12/23/how-humans-evolved-to-be-natural-omnivores/
But considering it's forbes, I wouldn't trust it 100%.

I can't find an alternative source that proves your theory tbh. I'd like to read one. Considering we both are most likely not experts here, it wouldn't hurt to read a decent scientific source.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zen
My main thing is to look at the behavior and compare it to biological traits.
The points i made are key traits that omnivores and carnivores have that we humans do not have biologically or genetically.
Quick google search may be implying that we behave as omnivores do, but doesn't mean we are omnivores.

Behaving as something doesn't mean you are that specific thing

A cat is biologically 100% carnivore but if you give it Watermelon or certain fruits, it will eat it so it can also behave as an omnivore.

Same could be said on topics outside of diet.

You can give a baseball player a cricket racket. Doesn't mean the baseball player is now also a cricket player. He is a baseball player playing cricket.
 
Last edited:
Another question, since when do we humans care more about a pig, than an unborn child?

This is a conversation about abortion is it not?

There are several people posting in this thread that seem to omit themselves from eating meat because they care about the animals life. Yet these same people think it's perfectly okay to kill children.

I have yet to see a valid argument worth refutting, regarding the ACTUAL subject at hand.
 
Another question, since when do we humans care more about a pig, than an unborn child?

This is a conversation about abortion is it not?

There are several people posting in this thread that seem to omit themselves from eating meat because they care about the animals life. Yet these same people think it's perfectly okay to kill children.

I have yet to see a valid argument worth refutting, regarding the ACTUAL subject at hand.
You are you are anti-abortion because you care about life. But we are disproving your premise that you care about life.
 
Another question, since when do we humans care more about a pig, than an unborn child?

This is a conversation about abortion is it not?

There are several people posting in this thread that seem to omit themselves from eating meat because they care about the animals life. Yet these same people think it's perfectly okay to kill children.

I have yet to see a valid argument worth refutting, regarding the ACTUAL subject at hand.

Why not care about every life? From a pig to a human baby?

A sentinent life is a life, regardless of what species it is.
 
You going to provide any evidence for this claim? Cause it seems weird to me to have at least half a million kids in foster care when there is such a demand for adopting these kids. I would assume you're referring to adoption agencies alone, which I don't think includes foster care depending on the study. Also I don't understand the assumption that because they didn't want their child, they would put them up for adoption. This would only be true for a proportion of these babies. That is not a decision that is as easy to make as it sounds, and many of these kids will be raised in a household with slight to severe resentment. Explain the number of kids in foster care if this demand is as high as you assert it to be.

Yes I'm talking about adoption agencies. Do you know of any other way to adopt an infant? The foster care system is entirely different. Those are children who were born to parents who wanted them, but for whatever reason they cannot care for them anymore. Yes I can provide evidence, the following information can be found on this website http://www.adopt.org/types-adoptions

"There are more people wanting to adopt infants than there are infants available to be adopted. "

As to why there are so many children in the foster care system, I can only speculate by assuming most people prefer to raise a child from infancy. Get to experience all the childs firsts, and get to mold it completely. Not to mention not as many people are willing to take on an 11 year old boy whose parents were drug addicts and physically abusive. I commend the people that are willing to take on those children as that is far from an easy task. Parenting is hard enough as it is so I can only imagine how difficult it can be to take on emotionally unstable children.

You think I am un-aware of this? You do realize that meat-alternatives are very new to our society and it will take time for it to evolve into a truly non-animal-harming system. You would rather focus on a technicality than the original intention of morality. It's economics my man, it will take time for the market to adjust for the fact that people place monetary VALUE on not harming bees. Once the market adjusts for that, there will be options that do not kill bees like that, but in the mean-time you're saying that I should just say :censored: it to my beliefs because I can't execute them perfectly at this point and time? That's a little far-fetched to me. I still eat eggs, since I am not full vegan, caring for all forms of life doesn't happen overnight. It takes time. What happens to bees is wrong, but seems like an obvious lesser-of-two-evils when you observe the practices of slaughterhouses. By not funding the production of meat, it creates a signal to the market that there is money to be made catering to vegans/vegetarians. Also it's not easy giving up harming animals, it's a process. Some people start by eating less meat per week, instead of cutting it all out. I wouldn't have an issue with them, I would respect their desire to appreciate all forms of life, even if it isn't perfect.

There is no technicality. Essentially all people value human life over the life of animals. And I would argue that is not inherently wrong when it comes to feeding ourselves. You said so yourself that you do. If you eat any of those things that I listed, and assuming it wasn't homegrown, then you turned your head to the exploitation of an animal because it was convenient to you. After all you could have chosen to eat something else. And you say one is obviously better than the other but I couldn't disagree more. Why would killing a bee in pursuit of putting food on your table be anymore wrong than killing a pig in pursuit of the same thing? Because the pig is cute and cuddly? There are plenty of crops that don't require the exploitation of bees. But many vegans will choose to drink their avocado almond milk smoothie anyway. But here's where things get complicated. The fact is the entire human population cannot sustain itself without the exploitation of animals. Not now, perhaps not ever. I just ask that people don't pretend they are better than anyone else. Which I'm not accusing you of. I was saying I can't stand the hypocrisy of the people who shame others for eating meat. You aren't doing that :)
 
Another question, since when do we humans care more about a pig, than an unborn child?

This is a conversation about abortion is it not?

There are several people posting in this thread that seem to omit themselves from eating meat because they care about the animals life. Yet these same people think it's perfectly okay to kill children.

I have yet to see a valid argument worth refutting, regarding the ACTUAL subject at hand.

kill children you say, but at what point can you actually start calling it a "child"? an embryo is not sentient. a pig is

My main thing is to look at the behavior and compare it to biological traits.
The points i made are key traits that omnivores and carnivores have that we humans do not have biologically or genetically.
Quick google search may be implying that we behave as omnivores do, but doesn't mean we are omnivores.

Behaving as something doesn't mean you are that specific thing



Same could be said on topics outside of diet.

You can give a baseball player a cricket racket. Doesn't mean the baseball player is now also a cricket player. he is a baseball player playing cricket.
humans have the digestive enzymes to be able to eat meat => biologically and gentically omnivores, no?
difference is that if you give a cricket racket to a baseball player, the baseball player doesnt slowly die
 
  • Like
Reactions: zen
Back
Top Bottom