Wednesday, September 03, 2008

Abortion And Animal Experimentation

One comes across these articles—well, I do anyway—and they trigger stuff. So, first, here are the articles, or at least two of them. You can use the links in the last one to follow through the discussion threads that join up with it.

A Stark Choice on Abortion

Humans are more important than animals

So, what was triggered here is this question:

WTF is actually going on in the heads of people—some of whom may have well children, who may or may not survive their parents' apparent incapacity to emote coherently—who on one hand advocate abortion and on the other protest against animal experimentation, or the eating of animals for that matter?

I am at a loss for an answer, because I find myself unable to replicate anything resembling what their 'thought'-processes might be, and if you can't do that, then 'understanding' is impossible.

I'm wondering if anybody has any suggesting going beyond "Well, people just think silly things", or something along those lines.

Maybe I should add that once upon a time, when they weren't stark-raving lunatics, was I a member of PETA (watch the manipulative video on their site!), and from around that time also dates my ethical objection to eating meat—though I bow to nutritional realism and eat animal products, such as free-range eggs, vegetarian-rennet cheese and fish; and I also have no issue with wearing leather shoes. And if there's nothing else around to eat, I will eat meat. But as long as there's a reasonable choice I won't.

It's all about 'choices' of course, and taking responsibility for them. Goes without saying, even though I'm saying it again, and will do so for a long time to come. But I also have decided that 'speciesism' is not a derogatory term, and that these kinds of choices are 'value'-dependent, and not what you might call 'rational'. Just depends on the values then.

The matter is, of course, never entirely clear, because nothing in life ever is. The question of whether to save the faithful family dog or the childmolester will have a different answer than whether to save the faithful family dog or the 70-year old man (who, if a 'stranger', might be out of luck if the 'savior' having to make the choice is one of the PETA crowd). It may be safer to put in his place a more abstract and general 'person' like: a human belonging to the set of those humans considered, by the savior(s), to be worthy of being 'saved'over and above faithful doggie.

And, no, I haven't even touched on 'abortion' and won't either. But Creepy O, who, apparently considers that a baby might reasonably be considered 'punishment' for the unprepared (see A Stark Choice on Abortion), definitely hasn't done anything to endear himself to anyone with even a smidgen of basic humanity.

No comments: