Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The predator may have no consciousness of being cruel but is cruel just the same. American Indians and other cultures who tortured their enemies to death might not have though it justice instead of cruelty, but cruel it was just the same.Of course it does
A predator that kills its prey is not cruel. Animals act on instinct and as such cannot be cruel because those behaviors are hard wired into their behavior and the animal has no choice but to act that way. You are anthropomorphizing nature by attaching adjectives like cruel to what is behavior that is in accordance with the nature of the animal or of the natural world itself.
The abortion issue is far more complicated. The legal and ethical question there is if a fetus has all the rights of personhood that we as a society recognize in all born persons. And if you think that at the instant of conception is when all rights or personhood should be granted to the unborn then you are stepping into a mire where it has to be decided what rights of the unborn are put before the rights of the woman and when.
If you want the fetus to have all rights of personhood at the instant of conception then the first thing to be decided is how you want the government to be notified of the existence of this new person that just happens to be unborn at the moment. After all if the government doesn't know a person exists then there can be no protection of that person.
Should the government make it a law that the results of all positive pregnancy tests be reported along with the mother's name address SSN etc? What about the fathers name address and SSN? Should doctors have to supply this data to the government without permission of the mother? What about home pregnancy tests?
And that's just the first hurdle in the fetal rights of personhood argument.
Animals do not torture each otherThe predator may have no consciousness of being cruel but is cruel just the same. American Indians and other cultures who tortured their enemies to death might not have though it justice instead of cruelty, but cruel it was just the same.
And in my opinion, anyone who equates the law and rights as being the consideration in abortion and cruelty to the unborn child is not part of that is engaging in some serious cognitive dissonance.
The law, what rights exist etc etc. mean squat to the baby that is being torn apart or subjected to other unnecessary pain in the womb. If you don't consider that torture or a bad thing oh well. There's no accounting for some people's understanding.Animals do not torture each other
Animals have no concept of justice
You are using human emotion and values to define the world of nature where those values do not exist and all things simply behave as their nature demands.
As much as you might want to deny it the law is what society determines it is.
I think it is extremely important and I notice you completely ignored the very first step in establishing fetal rights of personhood. And won't even state what you think the government's obligation is in protecting these rights or how the government should go about it.
But so far you are just like every other person here who says that a fetus has rights at the second of conception. You all stop at that statement and avoid discussing the real life things that would have to happen to make that a reality.
Most abortions are nothing but induced miscarriages in the first 11 weeks of pregnancy and there is no "ripping apart".The law, what rights exist etc etc. mean squat to the baby that is being torn apart or subjected to other unnecessary pain in the womb. If you don't consider that torture or a bad thing oh well. There's no accounting for some people's understanding.
If you think somebody or some animal/creature/fish/bird whatever has to know what torture is in order to inflict it or experience it, there's no accounting for the huge cognitive dissonance in that one.
And if you think it is more humane for animals to die of illness, injury, suffering, starving or whatever than it is to humanely, quickly, and without emotional trauma kill an animal out of compassion or for human consumption, I don't know how somebody rationalizes that.
There is no clear cut black and white in all of this, but for sure we can at least try to be intellectually honest about it.
The first hurdle of fetal rights of personhood has absolutely nothing to do with it. Again that baby in the womb doesn't know anything about rights, the law, woke theology or anything else. But he/she feels pain and discomfort. And trying to rationalize that most abortions happen early so the more late term abortions don't matter sure sounds like cognitive dissonance to me.Most abortions are nothing but induced miscarriages in the first 11 weeks of pregnancy and there is no "ripping apart".
I have always been of the mind that abortions should be limited to the first trimester because the nervous system is not yet developed and it is our nervous system that is the seat of our consciousness and sentience.
You are ascribing human emotions and motives to animals. Nature is not cruel it merely is what it is. All things living will die, sometimes that death is quick sometimes it is lingering. But if you believe in a god that created the natural world and everything in it and you hold that the natural world is cruel, what does that say about your god?
And I notice you are still not addressing the first hurdle of fetal rights of personhood.
A new, genetically distinct human being. One that has never existed before and will never exist again.And I notice you are still not addressing the first hurdle of fetal rights of personhood.
In 2008, 1.2 million abortions occurred in the United States, of which 6.2% took place between 13 weeks of gestation and 15 weeks of gestation, and 4.0% took place at 16 weeks of gestation or later. Do the math.Most abortions are nothing but induced miscarriages in the first 11 weeks of pregnancy and there is no "ripping apart".
www.acog.org
Raw nature, flora, fauna, humankind, can be unbelievably savage and cruel. That is simply a fact of life on Earth. And there is also nobility, beauty, caring, healing, love.
Humankind is just one of many millions of species on Earth and the only species that has a choice of whether to be cruel and savage or not.
The fetus doesn't know anything about anything at all. It won't know if it is aborted or if a miscarriage occurs naturally it won't know if it's born either. There is nothing to argue there. But if you want a fetus to be considered to have all the rights of personhood then you have to consider both the rights of the fetus AND the rights of the woman but none of you people here who want fetal rights of personhood want to discuss the issue at all.The first hurdle of fetal rights of personhood has absolutely nothing to do with it. Again that baby in the womb doesn't know anything about rights, the law, woke theology or anything else. But he/she feels pain and discomfort. And trying to rationalize that most abortions happen early so the more late term abortions don't matter sure sounds like cognitive dissonance to me.
And your definition of cruelty certainly isn't mind.
So we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.
All this is not intended to criticize you or bash you or anything else. But intellectual honesty requires that all components of everything be factored into whatever decisions or choices are made. And to accuse people of cognitive dissonance on one issue while dismissing their own on other issues is hypocrisy at worst and/or simply not intellectually honest at best.
Which brings me back to my original thesis on this thread. The opposite of cognitive dissonance is intellectual honesty.
Is it cruel that every living thing is born to die? Or is it necessary that every living thing is born to die?Forgive me for asking this if it was already stated earlier in the thread, but what is your point in this statement above?
Are you saying that because nature is "savage and cruel" that makes it natural or normal for humans to be that way too?
I don't want to misstate your position, but like I said, I just wasn't sure what your point was.
Yes, exactly. So why choose cruelty when we don't have to?
And make no mistake, there is no such thing as "humanely" killing someone who doesn't want to die. The very act of killing unnecessarily is inhumane, in other words, lacking compassion.
My point is that nature in itself is cruel. It doesn't help the painfully sick, the painfully injured, those starving from the ravages of old age or other reasons. It doesn't stop various creatures from killing other creatures in the most cruel, savage, brutal ways. That is a certain fact of life as much as the wonders and beauty and marvels and intelligence and cooperation that we also find in nature as well.Forgive me for asking this if it was already stated earlier in the thread, but what is your point in this statement above?
Are you saying that because nature is "savage and cruel" that makes it natural or normal for humans to be that way too?
I don't want to misstate your position, but like I said, I just wasn't sure what your point was.
Yes, exactly. So why choose cruelty when we don't have to?
And make no mistake, there is no such thing as "humanely" killing someone who doesn't want to die. The very act of killing unnecessarily is inhumane, in other words, lacking compassion.
For the human condition everything is choice. Kindness and the absence of kindness are artifacts of intelligence.Nature is not cruel or kind, not good or evil it just is what it is and all of nature behaves the way it does because that is the only way it can behave. If there is no choice there can be no cruelty or kindness.
Again I think your reasoning is strained and indefensible. But I will agree to disagree.The fetus doesn't know anything about anything at all. It won't know if it is aborted or if a miscarriage occurs naturally it won't know if it's born either. There is nothing to argue there. But if you want a fetus to be considered to have all the rights of personhood then you have to consider both the rights of the fetus AND the rights of the woman but none of you people here who want fetal rights of personhood want to discuss the issue at all.
And I never said late term abortions don't matter so don't imply that I did. And you talk about intellectual honesty huh?
Intellectual honesty also requires that you see things as they are and to not attach your value judgements and feelings to them especially those things in the natural world that are doing nothing but what is their nature to do.
Nature is not cruel or kind, not good or evil it just is what it is and all of nature behaves the way it does because that is the only way it can behave. If there is no choice there can be no cruelty or kindness.
Wouldn't the same logic apply to you if someone put a bullet through your head while you were drugged or sleeping?The fetus doesn't know anything about anything at all. It won't know if it is aborted or if a miscarriage occurs naturally it won't know if it's born either.
My point is that nature in itself is cruel. It doesn't help the painfully sick, the painfully injured, those starving from the ravages of old age or other reasons. It doesn't stop various creatures from killing other creatures in the most cruel, savage, brutal ways. That is a certain fact of life as much as the wonders and beauty and marvels and intelligence and cooperation that we also find in nature as well.
The creatures who treat others cruelly are only doing what comes naturally to them, how nature designed and programmed them. They are unaware of any other choice. But humankind who also kills for food can treat the animals it kills humanely until the time comes, and can make sure they do not suffer in the killing. That some humans do not make that choice does not negate the fact that many humans do.
Humans also can choose to humanely put a suffering creature out of its misery which rarely if ever happens in nature. And that in my opinion is a humane and ethical act whether or not the creature wants to die.
And it was not part of your comments, but my other observation is that almost all those who choose veganism as the ethical choice regarding animals also support abortion on demand and most put no restrictions on what point of pregnancy the abortion occurs.
I simply can find no rationale for that kind of reasoning other than cognitive dissonance.
Is it cruel that every living thing is born to die? Or is it necessary that every living thing is born to die?
Sure. And in some cases dying naturally is more painful than dying unnaturally, right?No, but there's a difference between dying of old age / natural causes, and having one's life cut short. In other words, being killed. Right?
yes they do BluesAnimals do not torture each other
Animals have no concept of justice
You and I can disagree on whether humans can ethically eat animal protein. Since it is certainly Biblical that the ancient ones of the Bible did so and if we believe the stories to have at least an element of truth that it was God who told them to do so, I have to believe God made us omnivorous and not herbivorous. And there is the story that God had regard for Abel's sacrifice of meat but not Cain's sacrifice of grain. But we can argue that one out on a religious thread sometime.I had a feeling that's what you meant, but I wanted to make sure.
Ok, here's the important thing. Your view, while very common, is not biblical. Now ordinarily I would not say that, unless I knew the person I was speaking to is a Christian. Because obviously a non-Christian is going to have a very different worldview, which likely will affect what they think about animals.
You said, "how nature designed and programmed them." That is the specific part I want to address.
As you know, this is a fallen world. So from a biblical perspective, the way the world is now is not at all the way it was designed to be, and not at all the way it was meant to be.
Yes, certain animals have adapted into what they are now in this fallen world. But the important point that I am trying make crystal clear is that God did not design the world to be the way it is now.
In the pre-fall world, in the Garden of Eden, ALL of creation were herbivores. Genesis 1:29-30 makes that clear. There were no slaughterhouses in Eden, the animals were not at each other's throats, and humans and animals were not at each other's throats. It was basically paradise.
In other words, God's intent - for all creation - from the start, was peace and harmony, not exploitation, violence and killing. Again, as I've said on other threads, God's intent is also made clear in the prophetic scriptures about the new earth / heaven, when God restores that world of peace and harmony that was His intent in the first place.
So IF what you were implying was that because "nature" designed the world the way it is now, then the current status quo is OK... my answer to that would be, it is not God's original design, this is a fallen world. Yes, some animals have no choice, but WE do. Meat is not only unnecessary for humans, it has been shown to be linked with preventable diseases and shorter lifespan.
There's a difference between humanely putting a suffering animal out of their misery.... and needlessly killing an animal who would have many more years to live if we didn't kill the animal, for "food", when it is completely unnecessary. The latter is not humane.
I do agree with you here, that it's wrong for vegans to be for abortion. As I think you know, I'm pro-life. So this is something you'd have to take up with Blues Man.
You and I can disagree on whether humans can ethically eat animal protein. Since it is certainly Biblical that the ancient ones of the Bible did so and if we believe the stories to have at least an element of truth that it was God who told them to do so, I have to believe God made us omnivorous and not herbivorous. And there is the story that God had regard for Abel's sacrifice of meat but not Cain's sacrifice of grain. But we can argue that one out on a religious thread sometime.
Now many of the dinosaurs were carnivorous and that can hardly be blamed on the sinfulness of humankind. And I'm pretty sure they didn't dispatch their prey in any kind of humane manner. Wolves and coyotes or their ancestors have been around longer than homo sapiens so what do you think? Have they always been carnivorous? Or did humankind somehow make them that way?
Have you ever seen coyotes or wolves take down their prey? It isn't pretty and if successful it can mean a far too long and extremely painful death for the hapless creature they take. A fairly small percentage of wild game lives to die of old age in the wild. As soon as they begin to wind down and lose their vitality which is the fate of all living creatures on Earth who live long enough, they usually die of sometimes painful ailments or become dinner for those coyotes, wolves, mountain lions, whatever is hungry out there. I think they would prefer a well placed shot from a hunter than have to suffer that fate.
And then there is the concept of raising your own food be it chickens/eggs, beef, pork, mutton or whatever so that you add to the world's food supply instead of consuming food needed by others.
And there is the ethical consideration of keeping, for our own pleasure, a dog or cat or horse at considerable expense for food and vet bills when there are suffering humans around the world who desperately need food and medicine. Would it not be more ethical to do without animal companionship and contribute more to the poor of the world?
All this needs to be factored into the equation to determine what is and what is not ethical. The answers are not easy but intellectually honest people consider it all and come to a decision of right and wrong as best we can.
And I think when we choose kindness over cruelty, love over hate, compassion over contempt/judgmentalism, God allows us a lot of leeway in what we decide is right and wrong for us.
Those who just push aside or refuse to think about inconvenient truths do probably suffer from cognitive dissonance.
(Blues Man would probably appreciate that, lol)
