• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Apathy for Fetus=>Love of Animals???

Perhaps it's a pragmatic preference for the actual over the potential.

Also, if a stray animal was somehow inhabiting my body against my will, I'd certainly not take kindly to it.

And if a fetus was, like, living in an alley somewhere and eating out of dumpsters, of course I'd bring it food and try to find shelter for it.

You seem to have this idea that prochoicers are stingy, selfish people.
I try to make sure everybody has what they need.
But that doesn't mean I can afford to rip out parts of my body and hand them around, or distribute my bodily resources to all and sundry.

Animals don't demand more than you can reasonably afford to give them... and society doesn't condemn you for not giving them more than you can reasonably afford to give them.

The same cannot be said of Z/E/Fs.
 
I haven't found that stereotype to be true with pro-choicers beyond this forum.

But I agree that I don't understand anyone that views an unborn baby as some type of blood sucking parisite.
 
So far, my track record would suggest that I care about fetuses a lot more than I do about various non-human mammals.

I've never stalked a fetus, run it down, killed it and eaten it. I've never peppersprayed a fetus while delivering newspapers. And for all my willingness to endorse killing a fetus to get it out of an unwilling woman's womb... I've never poisoned a fetus to keep it out of my garden shed, either.
 
Perpetual animus and venum. G-d knows I hate visiting the Abortion forum. :(
 
Very interesting article on the similarities between the pro-life movement and the animal rights movement. It's written on a HORRIBLE wallpaper background, though...I cut and pasted it to a doc file to be able to read it.


Similar Principles: The Animal Rights Movement, Feminism, and Abortion Opponents
Vasu Murti
________________________________________
Movements with a Similar Agenda
Like the nineteenth century movements to abolish human slavery and emancipate women, the contemporary movements in animal rights and prenatal rights move along parallel lines. Because similar moral principles are involved, the rational, secular, ethical debate over animal rights is beginning to resemble the raging debate over abortion. Animal-rights activists have even shown themselves to be "anti-choice," depending upon the issue. An article in The Animal's Voice Magazine, for example, states:
"Exit polls in Aspen, Colorado, after the failed 1989 fur ban was voted on, found that most people were against fur but wanted people to have a choice to wear it. Instead of giving in, we should take the offensive and state in no uncertain terms that to abuse and kill animals is wrong, period! There is no choice because another being had to suffer to produce that item. . . . I want to repeat that an eventual ban on fur would be impossible if we tell people that they have some sort of 'choice' to kill. . . . Remember, no one has the right to choose death over life for another being."[1]
The anti-abortion movement and the animal-rights movement use words and phrases like "respecting life" and "compassion." Both compare the mass slaughter of animals and the mass execution of unborn children to the Holocaust. Both see their cause as part of the human-rights movement, and consider themselves as extending human rights to a disenfranchised minority.
Anti-abortion activists counsel young women on sidewalks outside abortion clinics. Animal-rights activists talk to "sport" hunters about compassion for other living creatures. Activists in both movements have even picketed the homes of physicians or medical researchers who perform abortions or experiment upon animals. The controversial use of human fetal tissue for medical research brings these two causes even closer together.
Both movements have components that engage in nonviolent civil disobedience, and both have their militant factions -- the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), and Operation Rescue. The popular news media usually depict animal-rights and anti-abortion activists as extremists, fanatics, or terrorists who violate the law. Each movement, nonetheless, has its intelligentsia: moral philosophers, physicians, clergy, legal counsel, and others........


Read the rest at Similar Principles: The Animal Rights Movement, Feminism, and Abortion Opponents
 
Please see:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/452907-post78.html

So...Why the sweet lovey-dovey sentimentality for animals, but for defenseless humans in the womb--zippo to outright hatred? I don't get it.

For me, it's because I like animals better than I like people. I don't want either group to die, but I'd rather spend time with my dog than with most people I know.

In fact, I'm going to go do that right now.:2wave:
 
I view killing either as something that you don't want to do, but sometimes has to be done. I support animals testing and eating animals. Everything in life is not equal and you have to prioritize conflicting values.
 
Please see:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/452907-post78.html

So...Why the sweet lovey-dovey sentimentality for animals, but for defenseless humans in the womb--zippo to outright hatred? I don't get it.

Well, don't know many pro-choicers that hate fetuses, to start with. We don't think they're important enough to justify forcing women to gestate againts their will.

For me anyway, the main difference is that allowing an animal to live never violates another human being, whereas allowing a fetus to live can, in cases where the woman wants to abort. Therefore the pro-choice relationship with animals is a hell of a lot simpler.
 
o_O That's weird. Why would people thinking tht they shouldn't be obligated to give the right of "life" (as they're really not alive when aborted) to quasi-humans have anything to do with animal rights?
 
Love one creature(animals) and you have to love this other creature(fetii), otherwise you're being a big stinking hypocrite and putting animals above humans, I'd guess. Nevermind that we know the animal has consciousness(of some sort) and can feel pain and never relies on human bodies for survival, which kind of gives animals a head start, in my flu-infested brain.
 
RadFemRocker said:
Love one creature(animals) and you have to love this other creature(fetii), otherwise you're being a big stinking hypocrite and putting animals above humans, I'd guess.
I disagree. There is more to hypocrisy than mere inconsistency. Hypocrisy first involves making some sort of "rule", and second involves violating it. What you stated above could only be hypocrisy if some person made a rule about loving all animals equally, and then that person makes an exception. The person who does not embrace such a rule is free to love different animals unequally and non-hypocritically.

The thing called "human rights" is mis-named. It should be "person rights". Since humans are animals at the core, it can be easy to link "human rights" with "animal rights" -- but since by-any-definition persons are not animals, linking "person rights" to "animal rights" is not so easy, at all!
 
I do think people jump the gun a bit sometimes rgarding this: you say you care for one creature therefore you must be pledging universal care for creatures without saying so. It seems that there may be a possibility the above assumption motivated felicity's post. Thanks for the clarification.
 
Nevermind that we know the animal has consciousness(of some sort) and can feel pain

Actually, we don't have any real proof that animals feel pain either. But, to judge from their responses, it would seem that they do. On the same token, a fetus at about 8-10 weeks will respond violently to stimuli that you and I would find painful. So would you be against the abortion of an 8- to-10-week fetus?
 
Actually, we don't have any real proof that animals feel pain either. But, to judge from their responses, it would seem that they do. On the same token, a fetus at about 8-10 weeks will respond violently to stimuli that you and I would find painful. So would you be against the abortion of an 8- to-10-week fetus?

Considering that there is not sufficient connection between the brain and nervous system for the fetus to feel pain at this stage, no, I would not.
 
Considering that there is not sufficient connection between the brain and nervous system for the fetus to feel pain at this stage, no, I would not.

Well, many pro-life doctors maintain that a fetus can feel pain by 8 weeks after fertilization. Many pro-abortion doctors argue that a fetus doesn't feel pain until very late in the pregnancy. Whose testimony is more reliable, those who have a financial interest in the availability of abortion or those who don't?
Ethically speaking, which testimony is the safer one to accept?
 
Well, many pro-life doctors maintain that a fetus can feel pain by 8 weeks after fertilization.

Despite the incontrovertible fact that embryoes at the 8 week mark do not yet possess the biological mechanisms necessary to experience pain; they aren't equipped to feel pain.

In other words, these doctors maintain this position by blatantly ignoring the fact that it is biologically impossible. You do not have to decide whose testimony is more reliable when one party's testimony can be proven false.
 
Well, many pro-life doctors maintain that a fetus can feel pain by 8 weeks after fertilization. Many pro-abortion doctors argue that a fetus doesn't feel pain until very late in the pregnancy. Whose testimony is more reliable, those who have a financial interest in the availability of abortion or those who don't?
Ethically speaking, which testimony is the safer one to accept?

The one that's backed up by actual scientific research (i.e. the pro-choice side) and doesn't involve violating the rights of born human beings on a possibility. Anti-choice doctors(see, I can use offensive, inaccurate words for people who disagree with me too) and pro-choice doctors are all trained doctors, many of whom go into gynaecology. What do you think would result in more money for a pro-choice doctor, 9 months of maternal care or a one of procedure?
 
Roberdorus said:
Well, many pro-life doctors maintain that a fetus can feel pain by 8 weeks after fertilization.
They can say whatever they want, but that does not, by itself, make it true. One thing that might be true, however, relates to the "autonomic system". Part of this system a doctor can test by tapping your knee, and your leg kicks a bit in response. This response happens independently of brain function: nerve signals travel to the spinal cord, are processed there, and the command to kick the leg originates there. Well, pain signals tend to be processed the same way, but it is not so ethical to test that directly (the knee-jerk reaction is painless, so that is what they test instead). Nevertheless, out in the real world, when you accidently prick your finger and your hand jerks back, that also is an autonomic response. You can feel the pain as the nerve signals reach the brain, but the autonomic/robotic response to the pain is already taking place; part of your body detected the pain first.

That last sentence is the key; others posting in other Threads have presented good evidence that the spinal cord does not connect to the brain until (after) the sixth month of pregnancy. So at 8 weeks (two months) any response to pain is purely autonomic/robotic; the organism as a whole cannot feel it because the growing nervous system isn't connect to the brain at that time.
 
Despite the incontrovertible fact that embryoes at the 8 week mark do not yet possess the biological mechanisms necessary to experience pain; they aren't equipped to feel pain.

In other words, these doctors maintain this position by blatantly ignoring the fact that it is biologically impossible. You do not have to decide whose testimony is more reliable when one party's testimony can be proven false.

By the age of 8 weeks the neuro-anatomic structures are present. What is "necessary" is (1) a sensory nerve to feel the pain and send a message to (2) the thalamus, a part of the base of the brain, and (3) motor nerves that send a message to that area. These are present at 8 weeks. The pain impulse goes to the thalamus. It sends a signal down the motor nerves to pull away from the hurt.


A more technical description would add that changes in heart rate and fetal movement also suggest that intrauterine manipulations are painful to the fetus.


The one that's backed up by actual scientific research (i.e. the pro-choice side)

Sources?

and doesn't involve violating the rights of born human beings on a possibility.

Well, I will concede that point. Pregnancy does involve the violation of a woman's right to bodily sovereignty. Abortion involves the violation of a child's right to life. The question we must ask is this. Which right is more fundamental? Which right has a greater claim? Who has more on the line?

Anti-choice doctors(see, I can use offensive, inaccurate words for people who disagree with me too)

I find that description of my position with respect to abortion to be neither "offensive" nor "inaccurate". As a matter of fact, I wear it like badge. Why? Because I am anti-choice when it comes to abortion. I'm also anti-choice when it comes to rape, murder, speeding, drunk-driving, theft, etc.
Choice is nothing apart from the context to which it is applied. You simply cannot talk about choice in isolation.
Anyway, I'm sorry that I offended you.
 
By the age of 8 weeks the neuro-anatomic structures are present. What is "necessary" is (1) a sensory nerve to feel the pain and send a message to (2) the thalamus, a part of the base of the brain, and (3) motor nerves that send a message to that area. These are present at 8 weeks. The pain impulse goes to the thalamus. It sends a signal down the motor nerves to pull away from the hurt.


A more technical description would add that changes in heart rate and fetal movement also suggest that intrauterine manipulations are painful to the fetus.

You really should quote when you use the words of others, and your source really should acknowledge that heart rates fluctuations and movement during the abortion procedure are not proof of pain. Your source is also neglects to mention the cortex, a vital component in the human feeling of physical pain which becomes receptive:

The issue of fetal pain was addressed by a working group appointed by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in the United Kingdom. The panel consisted of experts in fetal development, law and bioethics. Dr. Anne McLaren headed the group. She commented: "Fetal awareness of pain is a very emotive topic, of particular concern to pregnant women, but we have tried to approach it without preconceptions, to examine the scientific evidence dispassionately, and to identify areas where further research is urgently needed.'' 1

The group determined that pain can only be felt by a fetus after nerve connections became established between two parts of its brain: the cortex and the thalamus. This happens about 26 weeks from conception. Professor Maria Fitzgerald of University College London, author of the working group's report, says that "little sensory input" reaches the brain of the developing fetus before 26 weeks. "Therefore reactions to noxious stimuli cannot be interpreted as feeling or perceiving pain." 10

They recommended that the administration of painkillers should be considered before an abortion for any fetus which is 24 or more weeks since conception. This would give a 2 week safety factor in case the date of conception is incorrectly calculated.

During 2005-SEP, a meta-study -- a review of existing medical studies -- into fetal pain -- was conducted by six medical personnel and reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

Medical News Today reported:

"The review found that a fetus's neurological pathways in its brain that allow for the 'conscious perception of pain' do not function until after 28 weeks' gestation."

Source: Can a fetus feel pain?


Roberdorus said:
Well, I will concede that point. Pregnancy does involve the violation of a woman's right to bodily sovereignty. Abortion involves the violation of a child's right to life. The question we must ask is this. Which right is more fundamental? Which right has a greater claim? Who has more on the line?

One cannot argue in terms of whether a right to life or a right to control one's own body is in itself the paramount concern in this case because each question refers to a very different entity. In one case, you'd be harming pschologically and physically a conciouss, sentient human being who you know can feel pain, in another you'd be ending the life of a fetus with no concept of life or death that would feel no sorrow at it's demise even if it was aware of it and in most cases no ability to even feel psychical pain. So who has more on the line, the self-aware human woman or the non-sentient fetus? I'd say the woman.

Roberdorus said:
I find that description of my position with respect to abortion to be neither "offensive" nor "inaccurate". As a matter of fact, I wear it like badge. Why? Because I am anti-choice when it comes to abortion. I'm also anti-choice when it comes to rape, murder, speeding, drunk-driving, theft, etc.
Choice is nothing apart from the context to which it is applied. You simply cannot talk about choice in isolation.

While you may not feel "anti-chioce" to be an innacurrate description of your abortion position, you must know that many pro-choicers understandably find the fallacy bewteen the "pro-abortion" label intolerable. Why seek to use this label? You're right, choice's don't exist in a vacuum, and your choice to presumably illegalise abortion if you could would have far ranging impact on society. Ready to explain to women why you think an egg and sperm are more important than they are? Ready to adopt one of the scores of unwanted babies that would result? Ready for a rise in infanticide rates?

Roberdorus said:
Anyway, I'm sorry that I offended you.

It's fine, just stick to respectful terminology in future.
 
Roberdorus said:
Pregnancy does involve the violation of a woman's right to bodily sovereignty.
True.
Roberdorus said:
Abortion involves the violation of a child's right to life.
UTTERLY FALSE, two ways. First is the fact that the fetus is not a child; it is only a fetus. Abortion only applies to fetuses, not children. Second is the fact that the fetus has no right to life, period. Not in the Natural World (else abortions would not be possible), and not even in the legal sense (else abortions would never have become allowable).
Roberdorus said:
The question we must ask is this. Which right is more fundamental?
STUPID QUESTION; simple answer. The woman's right to bodily sovereignty exists, and that's all there is to it. There is no "which" to think about being more fundamental. Existence of a right is a far more fundamental thing than the non-existence of a right.
Roberdorus said:
Which right has a greater claim?
STUPID QUESTION, same simple answer.
Roberdorus said:
Who has more on the line?
STUPID QUESTION, simple answer The woman is a "who" and the fetus is an "it", an animal. It cannot be a "who" if it does not have person-class brainpower --and it measurably doesn't. So again there are not two possibilties to take into account, when answering the question. Existence of a person is a "more on the line" thing than the non-existence of a person.

In closing I'd like to point out that while it is claimed that there is no such thing as a stupid question, the problem is that there IS such a thing as a "loaded" question, to phrase a question in such a way as to "rig" the answer. When the rigging is exposed, however, the loading of the question is revealed to be an exercise in stupidity, and therefore a loaded question is also a stupid question. Every time.
 
Thanks to RadFemRocker for her info from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Add this info from the American College of Obsteticians and Gynecologists:

"We know of no legitimate scientific information that supports the statement that a fetus experiences pain early in pregnancy.

We do know that the cerebellum attains its final configuration in the seventh month and that mylinization (or covering) of the spinal cord and brain begins between the 20th and 40th weeks of pregnancy. These as well as other neurological developments, would have to be in place for the fetus to receive pain.

To feel pain, a fetus needs neurotransmitted hormones. In animals, these complex chemicals develop in the last third of gestation. We know of no evidence that humans are different."
 
Back
Top Bottom