Replies

If animals don't abort their young, I'm surprised YOU don't think they're higher than we are. I'm simply asking why you think it's ok to kill them for your own culinary pleasures.
And as for fetuses, and eggs and sperm, and the nutrients that go into creating them...if any of them truly have legitimate life then they presumably have souls, right? What's keeping them from going straight to Heaven, then? YOU. Perhaps you want them born so they can contribute money to the church, first? Pass the collection plates around now, please, so Jim and Tammy Fae can keep the air conditioning going for their dogs. At least THEY respected living animals though. But unlike most right-to-lifers, they had all the money they wanted and could afford to spend time and energy caring about living creatures, instead of fundraising and indulgence-purchasing while inflaming passions with pictures of jelly that they claimed was a wasted life. Well the grape seeds killed to make actual jelly is just as potentially viable as a fetus...it's already fertilized in fact, and requires less sacrifice to sprout into a beautiful bush. But I don't see you protesting in front of Welch's. Ah, I see, there's not nearly as much money to make doing that, or guilt to deflect while playing "holier than thou" to others. Oh well.

So basically what you are telling me is that since the unborn have souls, it is in their best interest to kill them while in the womb? Your case is getting weaker and weaker. Tell me, when exactly does your respect for life begin? When is that exact point when you can say that the fetus is human and has God-given rights? Surely you can't say when it passes through the birth canal. It has a beating heart and a functioning brain before that. You can't say that it is when these vital organs appear, because you don't know that exact moment. Growth is an ongoing process. Just because it doesn't look like a human, it's not a human? So if some extremely deformed child was a burden to it's mother, the mother has the right to end it's life? The point is, that baby has a DNA structure of it's own. It is not the mother's, and it is not the father's. It is a separate entity. A living growing human. Any respectable doctor will concede to that.

I am astounded that you are still defending the animals. Let's take a hypothetical situation. Let's say that all animals (including humans) did not kill for the purposes of food. Are you aware that it is a scientific fact that insects would infest all of our crops because spiders and other predators would not eat them, and they would be too great in number for the crops to regrow in time to be harvested by us? Therefore we would have no means of sustenance. Therefore all life would die out. Now explain to me how that is better than keeping the natural balance of the food chain.

-Using the example of eating as a comparison to sex is a fundamentally flawed argument. Food provides daily sustenance and nutrition that we as humans need to survive. Sex does no such thing. One can not live much longer than a fortnight without food; one can live a lifetime without sex. Sex has no manifest daily importance in our lives. We do not die if we do not have sex. Thus, the urgency that some people apparently feel for sex may not be unfounded, but it can not be in any way compared with the urge to eat, which is roughly on par with the urge to live. Hey, sex may seem really important to you. But I don’t know of many great men who died saying something like: “Well, at least I got lots of action.”

-I don’t think you have any basis for saying a fertilized seed is the same as a fertilized human egg. That is lame and totally ignorant. Heck, you can’t even defend that in a utilitarian sense, dropping all morality.

-You know, this argument that a fetus is not human and therefore open to termination reminds me of other historical viewpoints. That African Americans were not human, and thus subject to the [“superior”] white man. That the Untermensch were somewhat lesser than humans and so could be cast aside and erased from the earth to make room for the rest of us. You will no doubt dismiss this comparison as ludicrous. But then after all, did the Germans react any differently than you when people like me stood up for those they oppressed? Did the plantation owners? You have all the “modern” science you need to convince you that no, you are in fact justified this time around in calling our subject less than human. But one day soon your science will be that of an ever-more-distant past. And so far my side of this argument has two victories, while yours has none. The question, I think, is are you prepared to be on the wrong side of history?