Home / Stir The Pot: Abortion vs Vegetarianism

Stir The Pot: Abortion vs Vegetarianism

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

People seem to enjoy a good online fight or debate and this war as been great fuel for fodder. Still, I would like to take a moment to fan the flames elsewhere because… well its Sunday, and I am feeling ornery and I don’t want to talk about the war for a few moments. So here’s a topic sure to annoy and enflame.

Warning: Take EVERYTHING with a grain of salt. It usually tastes better.

Recently, the senate passed a ban on “partial birth abortions”. Now if you aren’t sure what that is, I would suggest looking it up on google and I am sure you will find all you want to know and then some. I will tell you, however that this name was chosen for its ability to inflame the sensibilities of the public. For example, honey is fermented bee vomit however we don’t put “fermented bee vomit” on our toast, do we? Calling honey “fermented bee vomit” is kind of nasty and who would want that on toast? As they say… it’s all in how you say it.

Now, after watching the press on the “partial birth abortions”, I began to wonder if everyone in the pro-life (anti-abortion) camp are vegetarians because well… if you are pro-life, wouldn’t logic dictate that you should not kill an animal for food? I mean, don’t animals have life? (Now before I loose you here and you go off on a temper tantrum and call me all kinds of nasty words, keep following my plot, please) I suppose you could then argue that the bible says that God made the animals to be lorded over by man… but then I would have to point out your flaw in that argument. What if I am not Christian? What if I am pagan, or celebrate an eastern religion or maybe I don’t believe in God at all? I ask then what right does your religion have to do with influencing directly or indirectly the choices of others? I mean, this is the line old Osama took to deal with the “infidel” Americans. He bombed us for so many reasons and because of his screwy take on Islam (which, I might ad, not ALL Muslims agree with) felt justified in attacking the US. His beliefs were pushed upon the US.

So you can then argue that it’s wrong for moral reasons… And here I would be more willing to listen as that I have a problem with “organized religion” (in my world, an oxymoron) however I would point out that naturally, there are many plants that induce natural abortion. I recall in high school when doing research on a speech I was to give about abortion (I went to an all girls catholic high school and even then, I liked to stir the pot) I went to the local library to look up natural methods of abortion only to find that all the plant books I looked through would have all the pages related to plants which can induce abortion torn out. Someone was trying to suppress information some where and by golly I really hate that.

Anyway, this little blurb might seem silly to some but if you really think about it why is it not okay to have an abortion yet okay to eat a hamburger? Life is life? Or are some lives worth more than others? And if so… who wrote the rules on that? It may seem like I am trivializing a topic many feel strongly about however I’m an intellectual when I am not playing video games or working on my website. So it is a valid question. At the very least, it might be something to argue about besides the war for 3 minutes.

I’m ready… have at it (me).

*bites into nice big Cheeseburger*

Powered by

About Tek

  • san

    According to Christian doctrine, the animals were placed on earth for human use, e.g., food. Human life is sacred; animal life is not, per Christian doctrine. Anyway, why didn’t you mention plant life? After all, if all life is sacred, then that grain of salt you mentioned is about all we’d be eating.

    In the medical community, “partial-birth abortion” is called “late-term abortion”; the latter term is not loaded for bear. (Can you eat bear?)

  • san

    V, you addressed that concept I mentioned in my comment. Sorry.

    In that case, accepting the you are not Christian, Christian doctrine teaches that the only true faith is the Christian. So, if you’re Christian and do not recognize the divinely authorized sovereignty of humans over animals, then you’re wrong. If you’re not Christian, well, then you’re wrong.

  • ooh, screwy logic. ouch. why write something just to annoy people? what’s the point? i don’t even feel like arguing, and that’s pretty wierd for me.

  • sorry, i just had to bring this up on your “plants that induce abortion” bit…what about the myriad animals (including mammals) that eat their young? You see it all the time with hamsters, why isn’t it wrong with humans? rationalizing human behavior because it occurs in nature is completely illegitimate, or else i would suggest that we bash our heads together like antelopes, it’s far better than e-arguing.

  • But Craig, eating a plant is not a “behavior”. Eating is something that everything on this world save intimate objects must do. Talking about eating a plant that is naturally occurring is not rationalizing human behavior.

  • I think you worded the argument all wrong.

    First you write:

    “if you are pro-life, wouldn’t logic dictate that you should not kill an animal for food?”

    First of all, what you call “logic” would not dictate that because you claim to be pro-life you should not kill an animal for food — anymore than logic would proclaim that because you are pro-Republican or pro-Democrat or pro-American you absolutely agree on every single one of their principles. To be pro-something does not neccessarily mean you are exclusively in favor in every instance; in fact, I dare say that most pro-lifers are not exclusively anti-death, and that many even support death from natural causes, as well as the death penalty. Likewise, you will find that many pro-choice types are opposed to extending choices to those late-term fetuses, who do appear to have an opinion on their own execution, given the effort they expend in struggling against it. This, however, is not a constitutionally-protected form of free speech that pro-choice people are likely to recognize.

    You continue: “I mean, don’t animals have life? … I suppose you could then argue that the bible says that God made the animals to be lorded over by man… but then I would have to point out your flaw in that argument. What if I am not Christian? What if I am pagan, or celebrate an eastern religion or maybe I don’t believe in God at all? I ask then what right does your religion have to do with influencing directly or indirectly the choices of others?”

    Well, as far as eating meat, I don’t know of any organized religion that is bent on making this choice for you — do you? Is there a religion out there that’s forcing you to eat meat?

  • no, victoria, eating a plant is a necessary behavior, but still a behavior.
    it seemed, however, that you were talking about plants that induce abortion as a justification for abortion by humans, which would also be a behavior. the two aren’t especially related.
    oh, and it’s “inanimate.”

  • Charlie

    This is perhaps the most uninformed rant from an anti-lifer I have ever seen. Partial-birth abortion is a term used because the medical term doesn’t mean anything to the average joe. Refering to honey and bee vomit may be technically correct, and might be necessary if we didn’t know what honey was. However, the fact that PBA abortion involve the (guess what) partial birth of the baby, the cutting open of her skull, and the sucking out of her brains is very important to its moral evaluation.

    The difference between humans and (most?) other animals does not have to be based on Christian or other religious criteria. Is it based on the fact that human beings are rational, conscious, and aware of their own existance over time. Thus they are persons and have a right to life. Animals which are not rational, not conscious, and not aware of their own existance over time are not persons and do not have a right to life.

    But, ah, you say…human fetuses are not persons yet. This is true. But then neither are human infants. There is no reason at all to support abortion and not also support infanticide. However, most treat human infants as persons anyway because given time and left alone they will become persons. But this is true for human fetuses as well. It is just much more easy to ignore their rights–because we don’t have to see their limbs torn up and their blood flow.

    I think you need to grow up and stop saying things just to “stir the pot” or piss of the nuns at your school or something and actually make systematic judgements based on reason.

  • You’re arguing that abortions are ok because they can be induced by plants, and plants are natural?

    Of course, killing a damned dirty hippy should be considered “natural” and therefore acceptable because it can be done with plants, for example a 2×4 in the back of the head.

  • Lt. J. Butcher

    I am pro-choice and semi-vegetarian. Our fellow mammals do not exist to be lorded over by men, and neither do women.

  • Pro Choice vegetarian

    I love this article, and completely agree with the author. In fact I have the same argument… you kill thousands of animals, and that is okay?

    Of course, these selfish meat eaters for the benefit of their tummies, and badly developed ideals argue that animals don’t have life? A century ago, slave owners argued the same way… that a group of living beings that cannot protect themselves suddenly become not worthy of life.

    Don’t worry, it is obvious on reading your post who is logical and who is not.

  • Cindy D

    Dear Pro Choice Vegetarian,

    A century ago…a group of living beings that cannot protect themselves suddenly become not worthy of life.

    They still do that. They just call it globalization now.

    I think I love you Pro Choice Vegetarian. I also think I love Ms. Tek (but I’m sure she’s long gone by now.)

  • Cindy D

    I also love cheeseburgers.

  • TipsyD

    I agree. I never understood why people make such a big fuss about a clutter of underdeveloped cells. Sure its the potential for life but it is not human yet. The world is already overpopulated, why make another mouth to feed if you can avoid it before it actualy becomes something conscious and feeling and would then really be killing as opposed to stopping the process of life. There are so many meat eaters that we have forced innocent animals to live in cruel INHUMANE living situations. Why is this alright and not abortion. What is so special about your stupid embryos. I’ve always strived to do the right thing and vote with my dollar. I eat organic, i compost, i recycle, i use enviromentaly friendly products, i am well educated, took sciences in university and i have had 2 abortions without any regrets. So if there is a greater force at work (you may call it god) why is it that when i’ve called out to it i still was made to feel perfectly confident in my choices. After all it shouldn’t be about the quantity of lives it should be about the quality.

  • bigdog107

    Hey TipsyD
    Sorry Tipsy but a great many abortions don’t involve embryos.
    As far as ‘it’, (some may call, ‘Him’ Adonai, ‘My Great Lord’ or El, ‘The Strong One’ or El Elyon, ‘The God Most High’ or Elohim, ‘The All-Powerful One’ or El Olam, ‘The Everlasting God’ or El Shaddai, ‘God Almighty’ or Immanuel, ‘God With Us’ or Jehovah, ‘The One Who Is’ or El Roi, ‘The God Who Sees Me’), these are names people have given ‘it’ after reaching out to God with all their heart and having a personal experience with the God of all creation. I’m just saying, if I had created the universe and you gave me a call and addressed me as, ‘it’ I’d put you on hold to let you think about it for a bit.

    Nevertheless, ‘it’ did say, Isaiah 44:24 Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, “I, the LORD, am the maker of all things”.

  • johnnyrant

    Wouldn’t you think being a vegetarian and being pro-life go together? I mean, being an ethical vegetarian has to do with respect for life and the reduction of animal suffering. How can one sensitized to the siffering of animals not be aware of the suffering (if brief) of a developing human, which is cut to pieces while alive.(Hello antivivisectionists!) I’m not really all that concerned about a blob of cells. But when you are talking about eyes, a mouth, fingers, toes, a beating heart…that’s something else.

    Leave the politics aside for a moment. Partial birth abortion will come to be seen as a sign of our societal depravity. If you have to suck the brains out of the fetus to save the life of the mother, suck away. But man, let the thing live a few more weeks and give it away it you don’t want it. Why destroy life? In such a horrific manner…

    Yes, it’s not viable. That grandmother in the iron lung isn’t viable either, we don’t suck her brains out.

    Politically, one could make the case that that being Pro-Choice is the true conservative position. Less government interference, US out of my Uterus, etc. Liberals, the sensitive souls who care about all living things, really ought to add the yet-to-be-born to their list of living beings to be protected. As we become more sensitive, aware, responsive and pro-active, I think we need to be able to tell ourselves the truth about what is going on in abortion.And not be afraid to look over the fence in the service of justice.

    Not crazy about it. Yes, as a pragmatic response, keep it Safe, Legal and Rare…not steak,silly!…Abortion…