Pro-choice and veg*n?
Hello VegWeb, it's been a while. I was reminded to log in the other day when I got into a debate with a friend about abortion. She challenged that as a veg*n I should also be pro-life by default, which led me into a pretty interesting examination of why I agree with these two philosophies.
I personally maintain that legalising abortion allows women to make important decisions regarding their bodies and futures, and brings the numbers of those seeking dangerous backstreet abortions down. In those countries which legalise abortion, such as my native England, I consider it a right of women in need, although never a method of birth control. Legal limits for abortion exist for a reason; if it isn't a viable foetus, I don't consider it murder.
As a veg*n, I neither support nor participate in the slaughter or torture of animals because I believe that compassion and right should not be extended only to those who have the ability to ask for them. I couldn't kill an animal (except in absolute, last-chance-to-survive emergency), and if I eat meat that's being done on my behalf.
Looking at the reasoning behind my support for legal abortion and veg*nism, I don't feel hypocritical for my decisions.
What about you, dear VegWebbers? Are you inherently conflicted? Which way does your allegiance lie on this tricky moral question?
~ps~ i also love my daughter as much as other people love their kids... (duh)
so my love for my daughter and my love for my animal babies is equal but different... just like your love between any two of your children would be equal but different. make sense?
...a lot of people don't get that or agree with it, but that's okay. i don't see anything wrong with love. i don't love anyone any less just because i love someone else more than others would. it just means that i've got a lot of love to give!
;) :iloveyou:
It's funny, when I was younger she said wait to have kids until marriage. Now she's saying it's ok NOT to be married...just have the kids. I always used to tell her I'd have them but she'd have to raise them until they were 18 at which point I'd get them back. ;D
hahaha! that's the way to do it!
why does she want you to have kids so much? she's pushing both of you really hard to have kids.
She doesn't push us hard to have kids...after all this time it's become a joke between us. Granted, it would be a thrill for her if it ever happened but she's content with the grandcats and granddogs.
She doesn't push us hard to have kids...after all this time it's become a joke between us. Granted, it would be a thrill for her if it ever happened but she's content with the grandcats and granddogs.
awe, well if one of her grandcats is the one in your icon, then she should be one proud grandmama because that one's a cutie!
She doesn't push us hard to have kids...after all this time it's become a joke between us. Granted, it would be a thrill for her if it ever happened but she's content with the grandcats and granddogs.
awe, well if one of her grandcats is the one in your icon, then she should be one proud grandmama because that one's a cutie!
Thanks! That's actually my twin's cat as a kitten. Her "grown up" picture is in my profile along with others pets I consider my "kids".
She doesn't push us hard to have kids...after all this time it's become a joke between us. Granted, it would be a thrill for her if it ever happened but she's content with the grandcats and granddogs.
awe, well if one of her grandcats is the one in your icon, then she should be one proud grandmama because that one's a cutie!
Thanks! That's actually my twin's cat as a kitten. Her "grown up" picture is in my profile along with others pets I consider my "kids".
i know. i was so intrigued by that kittie that i went to your profile and i commented all of the animal-babies!
;)
I finally figured out why I reconcile being vegan and pro-choice. I don't demand that no one eats meat. I don't demand that no one gets an abortion. It's freedom of choice. If I present a good enough argument, perhaps some people will stop using animal products and perhaps some people will not choose abortion. You can't force an idea on someone, they have to buy into it.
I'm Pro-choice, My own mind feels there's a time limit to it.. Like I don't agree with partial-birth abortions, in a sense that if it can survive as a premature infant, it shouldn't be aborted..
I've done a lot of research on both sides and it is a scary thing to decide. But I also feel that if one isn't ready for the child, they have to decide for themselves... and if its too late there is also adoption.
I too think one should be able to love a child that is not "theirs" I personally don't want children because of my own mental issues (maybe my age right now) but I absolutely love my nieces and some of my friends children, etc.
I don't really agree with the 4 or 5 children thing... but that might be because my mom had 4 kids and everyone in my family is so into kids that it seems so traditional... and its my younger age rebelling against some norm... haha.
But everyone is different in what they can do.
I think that people should take into consideration what they can provide for their child, love coming first.. but I more so feel that if society itself could be changed into a more loving and communal environment that money itself wouldn't be an issue.
I just really don't like today's nonexistent forms of 'community'.
Sorry, none of that made sense.
I finally figured out why I reconcile being vegan and pro-choice. I don't demand that no one eats meat. I don't demand that no one gets an abortion. It's freedom of choice. If I present a good enough argument, perhaps some people will stop using animal products and perhaps some people will not choose abortion. You can't force an idea on someone, they have to buy into it.
Very much agreed. I hate having to pick a label "pro-life" or "pro-choice," because I consider myself both. For awhile as a teenager I used to say that I was "pro-choice--and I CHOOSE to be pro-life."
But the bottom line is that I don't think it's something that the government (particularly the federal government) should pass a law outlawing. But just as I will defend my position on eating animals, I will defend my (personal) position on abortion.
...I know that some would say that's not good enough. But it's me.
I finally figured out why I reconcile being vegan and pro-choice. I don't demand that no one eats meat. I don't demand that no one gets an abortion. It's freedom of choice. If I present a good enough argument, perhaps some people will stop using animal products and perhaps some people will not choose abortion. You can't force an idea on someone, they have to buy into it.
yes yes!! thats a great explanation. i feel the exact same way. not my business.
I saw an interview with the Duggar's once, they don't believe in their daughters going to college, but their sons can. That ends it for me right there with regards to them.
"Primum, non nocere. First do no harm. Sounds sooo much classier in Latin...most things do, including Non Iligitimi Vincit...Don't Let the Bastards Win."
VV: I LOVE ur posts! Nice wordage!
I'm in agreement with most posts above-- there are times when abortion is the least-harm option, especially before the embryo's central nervous system is hooked up & running. History well-documents the harm to women & children that comes from no legal access to that medical service... & I don't think anyone that hasn't had to walk that road of desperate choices has the right to judge others who have. I also believe that no one has the right to mandate that kind of decision for anyone else. This has nothing to do with ethical food choices, except that it's important to figure out where you stand on both, in order to live a life that's true to your own best self.
I don't see how a fetus can be considered as only the "potential" to be a baby and not a living creature in its own right. What is the difference between a fetus a day before birth and the same "baby" the next day, after it's born? How is causing pain/death to a sentient being ok because of where that being is at the moment?
Sentience requires some type of nervous system interacting with some type of brain. This does not occur immediately upon fertilization; for a period of time, the embryo is a clump of rapidly dividing cells getting ready to do other things; this is not the same thing as a sentient entity. Also, cells can be 'living cells' and not be 'living creatures in their own right'-- cells from your liver or spleen, for example.
There is no difference between a fetus the day before birth & the day after; but there is a substantial difference between a newly fertilized egg and a baby. To say they are the same thing is like saying that a tomato seed is the same thing as a tomato... ever tried making marinara from tomato seeds? Not the same thing.
So would most of the folks here who are pro-choice limit that choice to a certain number of weeks to be sure a sentient being is not being harmed? What about women who choose late-term abortions? Is that ok in the name of choice, or is it wrong because it's harming a sentient being?
If we're talking about my own personal ethics, then yes, that's where my line would be drawn; but that's not the point... the point is that other folks don't get to decide that for me. Just like the government should never have the power to mandate abortion under any circumstance, it also wrong for it to mandate that decision for me in the other direction. Like food choices: you can't decide for other people, even in situations where you know perfectly well that you're ethically in the right. You can only decide for yourself.
I don't think anyone likes the idea of late-term abortions; but if your 14-year-old daughter was raped & hid her pregnancy until her second trimester 'cause she was in denial & felt so ashamed... you might want her to at least have that option. I mean, how are we gonna sit here & tell families with stuff like that going on that we know what their choice should be, better than they do?
The issue isn't what we think about abortion; it's who has the power to think it. I think it's the woman (or family) who has to live with the consequences of either decision; no one else's.
And yet in the case of the hypothetical 14yo rape victim, the law protects the life of the rapist. How do we decide whose life and problems are more important than another's? Is death for the late-term fetus less terrible than the psychological suffering of the 14yo?
We have anti cruelty laws for animals (and I'm all for them), we have laws that protect born humans from assault and murder. Why is it so easy to forget the rights (intrinsic rights, not legal rights) of the unborn late term baby? How do you weigh inconvenience and psycological stress over assault and murder?
for the record, I am not a religious person, and I do consider myself a feminist. But I am also pro human rights and pro animal rights, and am vegetarian. These are all personal choices, yes, but taken as a whole, people's personal choices drive public policy when the issue is important enough.
Regarding the law 'protecting the life of the rapist,' in our hypothetical example: have you guys ever noticed how many 'pro-life' folks are also pro-capital punishment & against teaching about birth control? I know that's a separate issue, I just think it's odd!
The fact is that the VAST majority of abortions in the US are performed in the first few weeks of pregnancy; late term abortions are NOT typically an 'on-demand' deal. If there are particular circumstances that lead to that option even being considered, I still think the best people to decide what to do are the woman/ family and the treating physician.
I hear what you're saying, and I do think it's important to keep thinking about & talking about the ethics involved here... maybe I'd be more open to arguments for limiting late-term abortions (a tiny percentage of occurrence!) if they didn't always seem to be attempts to find a 'backdoor' way to limit ALL access to abortion, or to throw up additional obstacles for women seeking that service within the first few weeks of pregnancy (which is most of the time).
Great and civil discussion going on over a year here. :) I've always thought it interesting that a vegan that wouldn't swat a fly or abuse a bee for it's honey would abort a baby. It is also interesting that many pro-lifers (not vegans) are pro-capital punishment and anti-sex education.
I'm not religious either, but from a physiological standpoint, when I was in nursing school, I decided that life begins before birth am pro-life. I do understand that life as a few cells (which really isn't when someone aborts since they don't know they are pregnant) is completely different from a fetus just prior to birth. To me a fetus of any age is a living being separate from the mother and not part of her body.
However, this is just not one of those battles I never get involved in, being a male especially I get the "how dare you tell me what to do with my body" stuff when I do, so I rarely if ever express an opinion. I remember years ago on this very board having someone flame me to a crisp saying a fetus is a parasite and I was not to tell her what to do with it. Learned my lesson then. LOL
In the medical field there is what we call "a viable fetus" which is usually 20 weeks or more, meaning that if for some reason the mother gives birth the baby can be saved. Otherwise prior to that the babies usually can live on their own, despite heroic efforts. Although there have been amazing strides in premmie care and earlier and earlier babies are surviving.
I'm not so sure the vast majority of abortions occur during the "first few weeks", but I guess that depends on how you define that. I'm not sure of the validity of this site, but it sounds about right to me: At what gestational ages are abortions performed:
52% of all abortions occur before the 9th week of pregnancy, 25% happen between the 9th & 10th week, 12% happen between the 11th and 12th week, 6% happen between the 13th & 15th week, 4% happen between the 16th & 20th week, and 1% of all abortions (16,450/yr.) happen after the 20th week of pregnancy." http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html
Been looking back at some of my posts in this and boy, have I learned to express myself better since then... ouch.
We have anti cruelty laws for animals (and I'm all for them), we have laws that protect born humans from assault and murder. Why is it so easy to forget the rights (intrinsic rights, not legal rights) of the unborn late term baby? How do you weigh inconvenience and psycological stress over assault and murder?
The big point for me here is that we know that the psychological health and wellbeing of a pregnant woman can often affect her pregnancy and birth experiences. There are women who feel themselves unable or unwilling to have a child and I can't possibly imagine what it must be like to have to carry a child to term, regardless of one's own wishes. Some mothers intend to put the baby up for adoption after birth and that is a perfectly acceptable solution for them. However, I cannot agree with arguing that a woman must put her body through pregnancy. A foetus could grow up into a happy, healthy child with all the potential in the world: there could also be miscarriage, complications of pregnancy, traumatic birth experiences and a lifetime of foster care.
Your post seemed to imply that abortion was just something a woman does because pregnancy would be inconvenient. I think it's worth pointing out that abortion is rare approached lightly. Doctors are required to make careful evaluations in each situation, at least in the UK, and counselling is always offered. It's a little callous to suggest that women seeking abortions don't think twice about it.
Tweety posted:
That works after the twenty week mark but even before that point, there are so many potential dangers and pitfalls in pregnancy, so many social issues surrounding it and so many personal circumstances to distort the issue that I can't consider the foetus to be in any way separate from the mother. We are talking about the wellbeing of an adolescent or adult and weighing that against a barely-formed baby which may or may not be carried to term. It's a reality versus a possibility. I think there are situations in which women feel it is absolutely unacceptable and impossible for them to have a child and that has to be respected, otherwise you're prioritising that possibility over a very real adult life.
Tweety posted:
That works after the twenty week mark but even before that point, there are so many potential dangers and pitfalls in pregnancy, so many social issues surrounding it and so many personal circumstances to distort the issue that I can't consider the foetus to be in any way separate from the mother. We are talking about the wellbeing of an adolescent or adult and weighing that against a barely-formed baby which may or may not be carried to term. It's a reality versus a possibility. I think there are situations in which women feel it is absolutely unacceptable and impossible for them to have a child and that has to be respected, otherwise you're prioritising that possibility over a very real adult life.
You do indeed express yourself very well and respectfully. In that case, I'll respond.
Basically we're just going to have to disagree. The way I look at it, at any age the fetus is not "part of the mother's body". The utuerus, intestines, gall bladder, these are parts of her body. The fetus, regardless of it's age shouldn't be something considered part of her body that she can dispose of. Obviously a fetus is so incredibly close to being one with the mother, it's impossible for it not to be considered part of the women's body and in so many senses it is.
Even though I understand that for someone, given their life circumstance being pregnant isn't really a possibility and the stress of carrying the baby may harm the baby, I'm still steadfast in my belief that this is a human being that we shouldn't have to option to terminate.
I've held this opinion probably longer than most of you have been in the world so it's not really changing. I do appreciate being able to express myself, and am always open to be argued with, flamed with, but at the end of the day a friendly "agree to disagree" is where it's going to wind up.
Pages