Posted on 05/03/2008 4:50:51 AM PDT by rhema
bookmark for later
“Personally, I’m off to KILL some plants known as weeds. (Sure hope I didn’t hurt their feelings calling them “weeds”...LOL)”
Ditto, it’s Saturday morning and I’m off to commit a plant holocaust on the Chinese Elm in my front yard. There must be at least 1.3Billion leaves that are going to die as a part of my clipper-led final solution...I’m taking no prisoners. I’ll “leave” this world having forever been cast as “Towed_Jumper Eichmann.”
sheesh.../s
I was headed out to do some “honey do” projects in the yard myself. As I read this, I kept thinking ok, where is the punch line, surly its around here somewhere. I honestly am speechless. I swear, my self esteem is taking a huge hit. I won’t be able to even walk on my grass without feeling guilt.
My morality paradigm is shifting drastically.
I’ve been waiting for this, I”m frankly surprised it took em this long.. I don’t know how buddhists survive frankly, when every breath and every step murders a ‘living’ being.. and the vegans? OMG think of the slaughter... don’t they think that vegetables have feelings too?
I think the Breatharians have it right... you remember them, they are the ones that are convinced that humans weren’t meant to subsist on food at all..
This gives a whole new meaning to the term “dead-heading”. I see they left lawn mowing out of this story. Typical nutty libs, some vegetation is “more equal” than other vegetation.
The Federal Constitution requires "account to be taken of the dignity of creation when handling animals, plants and other organisms". The ECNH’s key tasks include putting this concept into concrete terms.So it's not merely a useless exercise. If Pro-Life folks are arguing for an American Constitutional amendment to respect life, we might want to take this seriously and not mock it so. After all, as the article points out, there are those who would ignore or deny the "Würde der Kreatur" in cases of those who have lesser cognitive abilities.
While it's important we recognize the lines between "Würde der Kreatur" and full-fledged "animal rights" or "plant rights," the report does address these, and does not require a signed contract before picking an apple, or a living will before harvesting wheat! :-)
Also, note that the committee addresses some of the positions implied on this thread...
That plants should in some circumstances be protected in the interest of a third party, e.g. because they are useful to humans, is undisputed. Independent of the term dignity of living beings, then, the central question therefore remains: whether plants have an inherent worth, and should therefore be protected for their own sake. For some people, the question of whether the treatment or handling of plants requires moral justification is a meaningless one. The moral consideration of plants is considered to be senseless. Some people have warned that simply having this discussion at all is risible. In their view, the human treatment of plants is on morally neutral ground and therefore requires no justification.I'm curious how many FReepers actually looked at the document itself before criticizing it. Other than a rush to read it now, has anyone here besides me actually read it?
It is obvious to those who have read the report that this Weekly Standard piece presents a rather misleading picture. For example, it might interest FReepers to know that the report contains such points as the following:
A clear majority of the members takes the position that plant collectives have no inherent worth.
For Great Juicetice!
On the flip side, though, most FReepers would cringe from a true Christian world view. In a true Judeo-Christian world view, the earth is NOT man's (see Psalms 24:1), and to follow Jesus is to give up all material wealth and family (Luke 12:33 and Matthew 8:19-22). And the plant life is not for humanity alone, either (Gen 1:30).
It would also seem that God has His focus on sustainability (Psalms 119:90). Those who feel that "dominion=exploitation" should read more deeply, and realize that ethics apply even where responsibility has been given over.
I think one appropriate questioning of the report is why none of the committee members chose the Theocentric nature of the moral object, but most felt that the reason for considering moral issues with plants is that "Living organisms should be considered morally for their own sake because they are alive." (the biocentrist view that the Weekly Standard article decries).
But is that view anti-theological, or merely encompassing?
As long as it isn't an unborn baby, that is....
There is a term for this “bio-centrist” view. It is called “deep ecology”. It is actually a cult, a cult of the environment. I have read that Nancy Pelosi is a “deep ecologist”.
chuckle...really true...the PETA people say we shouldn't eat animals. Now this group says we shouldn't eat plants. What is mankind supposed to do? The last time I checked (when I was about four-years old), eating dirt was neither particularly tasty nor nutritious.
I'm convinced that ALL of these types of groups have a visceral hatred of mankind and wish we would all die off so that “Mother Earth” would be in harmony without us. ...very scary.
Who crys for the krill?
I am Cow
Hear me moo!
I weigh twice as much as you
And I look good on the barbecue
The Earth is the LORD’s, and the fullness thereof.
Glad to see others asking questions that should be raised.
Exactly. Those babies have no legal existence until suddenly they are old enough for use as pawns in UN initiatives and ACLU ‘child rights’ suits against schools and parents.
What view do you take? That there's no moral question to even be considered, or that there's a different basis for it?
They're Plants, Sir......Plants!...PLANTS!...
When I first heard about animals rights activists, I said it’s only a matter of time before vegetable and mineral rights activists come along.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.