Re: [microsound] http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nobis/papers/abortion_and_animals.html

[Lance Grabmiller <praemedia@xxxxxxxxx>]

--0-438303589-1036550095=:88516
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

yes, i would rather.
i get enough of that from the other lists i belong too.
well.....on second thought, the nn thread should die...
listen, had no problem with a couple, but that guy just kept going and going and going. and links to some rahter shadey and misinformed information as well. thats just spam if you ask me.
just my .02
 "s. arden hill" <s_ardenhill@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Lance, I really think you should consider what your saying. would you rather 
go back to taking about who is nn? or what everybodies top 5 albums ther 
listeningt o right now? than being informed about how stupid humans can be, 
and how we might prevent further inhuman acts towards animals, people and 
nature.

>can someone please get rid of this guy?
>hey listen, take it off list or this is just so much spam.
>besides all of us animal beating carnivores might get offended......
> Matthew Waterhorse 
>wrote:http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nobis/papers/abortion_and_animals.html
>
>Abortion and Animal Rights:
>
>Related, but Importantly Different, Issues
>In a recent letter (August 2001, p. 5), a ?Veg-News? reader asked why she
>does not see the vegetarian and animal rights communities taking a stand
>against abortion. She said it seems to be a "great contradiction" to 
>respect
>animal life, but to not equally respect human life by opposing abortion. 
>She
>asked that this issue be addressed. I would like to do so.
>
>
>Those who challenge the status quo regarding our society's consumption and
>treatment of animals do this from a wide variety of moral and philosophical
>perspectives. But all within the movement agree on this: a fundamental evil
>of animal agriculture and a diet and lifestyle that involves animal 
>products
>is that they cause pain, suffering, and early death that is totally
>unnecessary, for both animals and humans. The conviction that evils like
>these should be opposed and that we should bring an end to them is what
>motivates and unites many people in the vegetarian and animal rights
>community.
>
>
>Should these people also be motivated to oppose abortion? Unfortunately, 
>the
>safest answer seems to be this: no and yes. The answer is not simple 
>because
>abortions affect two importantly different kinds of fetuses: those that can
>experience pain and those that cannot. Scientific evidence suggests that
>early fetuses, those in the first trimester and slightly beyond, cannot
>experience pain since they lack the necessary neurological development.
>Although reliable data is hard to come by, most fetuses that are aborted 
>are
>early fetuses.Since they cannot experience pain in the procedure, the
>vegetarian and animal rights advocate's opposition to unnecessary pain and
>suffering does not apply here since there is no pain and suffering to
>oppose. There is no "great contradiction" here.
>
>
>While most abortion providers will not perform abortions past the fourth or
>fifth month (check your yellow pages under ?abortion?) and so there are
>relatively few later-term abortions, there are strong reasons to oppose
>later-term abortions due to the fetal pain and suffering. While probably no
>abortions are taken lightly, these definitely should not. The vegetarian 
>and
>animal rights advocate should find these abortions morally troubling,
>considered in themselves.
>
>
>We might, however, suspect that in many, if not most, cases of later-term
>abortion that the woman's health or safety is in question, or that the 
>fetus
>is aborted to prevent a very unfortunate future from befalling it due to
>disease or serious disability. While the pain and suffering of the fetus is
>very bad (although it might be preventable with anesthesia), these cases of
>later abortion might be permissible, given the complications of the case 
>and
>that others? interests are at stake as well.Later-term abortions done for
>trivial reasons (if abortions are ever done for trivial reasons) are likely
>to be morally inexcusable from many vegetarian and animal rights
>perspectives, since they cause serious pain and suffering without adequate
>justification or need.
>
>
>There are other arguments for and against abortion that I can only briefly
>address. Some ask, ?How would you like it if you had been aborted??
>suggesting that this shows that abortion is wrong.But one can ask right
>back, ?How would you like it if your parents had used birth control?? Since
>most don?t view birth control as immoral and the arguments are parallel,
>this shows this anti-abortion argument to be weak.
>
>
>It is often said that "all fetuses have a right to life," but this is just
>another way of saying "it's wrong to kill fetuses. "If it's wrong to kill
>fetuses, why is this so (and which ones)?Unfortunately, groups that oppose
>abortion tend to not address these questions and, when they do, fail to
>realize their best answers imply that living beings that are more conscious
>and sentient than human fetuses -- animals -- have a "right to life" as
>well. Since anti-abortionists tend to be opposed only to the ending of
>fetal lives and indifferent to the tragic lives and brutal deaths of farm
>animals and fur-bearers, it's a serious misnomer to call them "pro-life."
>
>
>On the other hand, pro-choice groups tend to refuse to admit that some
>choices of abortion result in intense pain and suffering for some fetuses.
>They stubbornly uphold a woman's right to choose to abort at any time and
>for literally any reason (or none whatsoever), no matter the consequences
>for the fetus, including late-term ones.Anyone convinced, as vegetarians
>are, that causing unnecessary pain and suffering is seriously wrong cannot
>accept an unconditional pro-choice position, one that gives infinite moral
>weight to a women's right to choice so that fetal pain counts for nothing,
>morally-speaking.
>
>
>However inadequate most debate of the morality of abortion is and however
>muddled most common arguments for and against abortion are, at least it is
>an issue that there is public debate over and that most people believe is
>important. Politicians' fates can be sealed by their views on abortion.
>Will there ever come a time when a "litmus test" for a candidate's 
>viability
>is whether he or she believes that animals have the right not to be eaten,
>worn, or experimented on? Will there come a time when campaign
>contributions from the meat industry will be viewed with as much suspicion
>as those from "Big Tobacco," as they both peddle products known to be
>harmful to human health?Vegetarian and animal rights advocates hope that
>their work makes it all the sooner that the answer to these questions is,
>?Yes.?
>
>
>Many vegetarian and animal rights advocates have likely been asked why they
>don't spend their efforts on supposedly "more important" issues, such as
>abortion.This question, of course, presumes that abortion is a ?more
>important? moral problem. I have argued that since most aborted fetuses 
>are
>not conscious and so cannot feel pain, the two issues?abortion and animal
>rights?are importantly different and so indifference to some kinds of
>abortions is consistent with a commonly-held motivation for advocating
>vegetarianism and respecting animals.
>
>
>For those fetuses that can feel pain, this is a serious issue, one that
>should not be dismissed. However, the number of these fetuses is tiny,
>compared to the tens of billions of animals slaughtered each year and the
>vast numbers of humans who unnecessarily suffer as a consequence of eating
>them. Also, there already are a large number of defenders of these 
>fetuses:
>whether they will be able to convince a critical political mass might 
>depend
>on their substituting reason for their current rhetoric.
>
>
>Since abortion already is a public issue, the best thing vegetarian and
>animal rights advocates can do is continue striving to make their issues a
>common topic of public debate and scrutiny. We do this by educating people
>about the horrors of factory farming, the utter lack of necessity for any 
>of
>its products, the unreliable of animal-based medical research and product
>testing, and the health benefits of a vegan diet. Given the huge numbers 
>of
>animals and humans that are harmed by this system and whose lives would
>change for the better were it abolished, it?s not clear that there?s
>anything ?more important? to be done.
>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Unlimited Internet access for only $21.95/month. Try MSN!
>http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/2monthsfree.asp
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>website: http://www.microsound.org
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Lance Grabmiller
>www.praemedia.com
>
>------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>---------------------------------
>Do you Yahoo!?
>HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now

_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online 
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
website: http://www.microsound.org

------------------------------

Lance Grabmiller 
www.praemedia.com

------------------------------

 

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
--0-438303589-1036550095=:88516--

------------------------------