Another Holiday with Meat Eaters :(

[Chris Tinney]

Every Holiday I sit at the table while a giant hunk of flesh is placed on the table.

I know if I say how I feel it will drive more people away from my message of loving animals and not eating them so I sit and I watch as people eat and I recieve compliments like, "you're the nicest vegan I know". I get peppered with questions that no one really wants the answer too so I'm short in my answers and simply say I have a brochure if they really want to know ("Why Vegan" from Veganoutreach.com). I feel good because every year someone comes to me and says, "I think I'm gonna try that". That makes me feel good.

What doesn't make me feel good is because I am more laid back people assume I'm ok with the jokes about meat. I'm not. I sit amazed as people that are overweight and unhealthy don't see the irony in telling me they don't think my diet is healthy. LOOK IN A FUCKING MIRROR PEOPLE!

We had ten dogs at our family xmas. almost all rescues. So I have to appreciate these people. But how can you rescue one animal and eat another?

I think if they walked in a room and saw the family dog being served for dinner they'd understand how I feel.

I dont have to live with an animal in order to love it enough to not kill it and eat it.

For that matter the homeless boy on the street doesnt have to me my biological son in order for me to love him and want to help.

Listen up all my Veg*n friends.
We're not the crazy ones.

They are.

What happens at your holidays?
How do you handle it?

[Ellen Tietjen]

Then don't you find it hypocritical to be against the killing of animals but have no problem with the killing of human beings? At least when someone who is non-vegan has an animal killed it is used for food and/or clothing.

[Fallopia Tuba]

Okay, I'm outta here.

[Mr. Yellow Sunshine Pants]

LOL, good choice. But I'm compelled to reply...

If someone decides on veganism because animals can sense pain, then I don't see any hypocrisy as Ellen suggests, especially if they only advocate abortion of non-sentient unborns (e.g. embryos), because that's consistent with (instead of hypocritical) their beliefs in protecting only sentient life. A sentient animal is NOT a non-sentient embryo (Ellen uses the "False Analogy" fallacy of logic: An animal is NOT the same as [analogous to] an embryo, and in another post --probably on the next page or two-- I'll describe why they aren't analogous. But do I really need to explain something that seems so simple?). It's no more hypocritical for someone with pro-SENTIENT-life beliefs to abort a non-sentient embryo than it is for them to abort a non-sentient... carrot (as vegans often "abort" a carrot's life ;-) ). It is FRUITARIANS, not vegans, who often protect non-sentient life (such as plants).

Approx 90% of abortions are done in the first trimester (before synapsis between the brain and thalamus, before neurochemicals that allow normal people to feel pain are present, etc: i.e. before they're known/proven to feel pain). But I do support the ban on late-term abortion unless mother's life is at risk. Actually, I'd like them to go further and mandate that an anesthetic is applied to late-term fetuses; even a dog gets that much consideration if he/she's euthanized (a quick death rather than being ripped apart whilst you can still feel).

And please, don't send me propaganda --although I'll consider any peer-reviewed science-- I'm a scientist and when I talk about synapsis above, it's my conclusion based on peer-reviewed studies and YEARS of research which culminated in me retiring with a patented medical device. ;-)

Another case is when a society can't or won't provide the would-be abortees with a decent life (look at the foster/adoptive care system: it's stressed even WITH abortion legal today...); many veg'ns consider it euthanasia when it's overpopulation or a society that won't care for all newborns (Also many vegans realize it's pro-animal to prevent overpopulation as it prevents destruction of animal habitats. ...then there's global warming and water wars etc,), and it therefore isn't necessarily hypocritical given their other beliefs and considerations.

>> "At least when someone who is non-vegan has an animal killed it is used for food and/or clothing."
>Ellen, you SORT OF have a point: Instead of throwing away embryos, I think we SHOULD use more embryos for stem cells to help crippled people. ...But then again, it's your guy who didn't let us for ?all 8? years, so the blame for your last complaint lies with the Bushies instead of pro-choice people. ;-) But again: a sentient animal who feels pain and isn't inside another sentient being (the mother) is NOT an embryo, thus the animal-rights debate is NOT the abortion debate.
>Consistent with what you said, I agree that if killing is done, we SHOULD efficiently use all parts of those killed to support those who are still alive... But when you have insects killed as the crops you eat are harvested, do you use those insects "for food or clothing"? Even better, to avoid killing in the first place: Do you grow your own crops with non-industrial and 100% organic techniques, to avoid killing MOST insects? (1. insects ARE animals, like embryos... 2. Literally, insects are probably a little more or a little less sentient than the embryos who you don't like being killed [too many variables to get it more exact than that]. So far what I'm saying is that INSECTS are analogous to embryos on the most relevant issues for vegans (the common reasons people go veg'n): not only relevant for veg'ns who see 'sanctity' of all life, or 'sanctity' of animal life, but also relevant for the people who go vegan based on animals' sentience to pain ...but insects & embryos would not be 'analogous' in the eyes of speciesists* i.e. 'sanctity for HUMAN life' types of people... But this is a veg'n website and speciesism has no rational (logical) basis, so hey ;-). 3. The average pro-choicer kills approx 2 embryos in her life; the average vegan kills thousands of insects each year for his food alone and the average omnivore kills even more insects for his food alone. Sorry, those ARE the biological facts; don't shoot me I'm just the messenger, I didn't make the world this way. Most vegans kill by using (unnecessary) industrialized-farming...but we all kill, in so many more ways. ...now what I'm saying is that most vegan pro-lifers will unnecessarily kill insects, but not embryos nor adult animals. WHY would you unnecessarily kill insects but not embryos? Of course it's because insects versus abortion, no matter if their physical characteristics are significantly-analogous (in all the RELEVANT ways to most vegans), they are non-analogous situations (just like animal-rights and abortion are non-analogous situations!!!). But maybe a pro-lifer doesn't want the inconvenience of growing your own food*, despite that that would let you kill less insects (remember, I showed that insects are analogous to embryos unless you're a speciesist or sumphin ;-) ), but then how are these pro-lifers any better than a woman who doesn't want the inconvenience AND PAIN of bearing a child? The pro-lifers are possibly even worse than the abortion-seeking woman IF the embryo that's killed is less sentient than the many insects that most pro-lifers unnecessarily kill), etc... but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you don't give to pro-choicers and I'll say that a pro-lifer killing 1000 insects is possibly not as bad as someone getting an abortion because the situations aren't analogous. ...but you need food (just like our society needs to prevent over-population, and a woman might need the use of her body to go to her WORK and FEED HERSELF). But the real question is: WHY would you kill insects but not embryos, AND consider that non-hypocritical, but then consider pro-choice-vegans hypocritical?? *NOTE: My point here isn't to call you a speciesist, nor a hypocrite --as you've done unto me, and totally based on your flawed logic ("False Analogy" as logicians call it)-- the point is that everyone can avoid killing in different ways...but being against 1st-trimester abortions protects life very little (compared to say growing your own veggies which kills less insects). Being against the type of abortion that 90% of women get, 1st-trimester abortions, is about as significant as saving AN ANT: At worst, you're even saving an unsentient being who will grow up and displace/KILL a sentient animal by taking its habitat...and at best, you're protecting "life that can sense about as much as a Venus Flytrap, and certainly cannot sense 'pain' (because 'PAIN' is felt via the A-delta and C afferent neurons; embryos and even early fetuses don't have those developed to the point of synapsis)".

I say this with the objectivity of a neuroscientist, not a speciesist's illogical subjectivity nor the illogical subjectivity of religions that take pro-life as a matter of esotericist 'sanctity' (as Bramble expresses about a page down from here, time-stamped 6:43pm) or 'faith'. There's nothing wrong with having faith in intangible/unprovable things like 'God' or 'sanctity,' but that's not related to veganism (the first vegan was agnostic), and you can't legislate based on that (hence the pseudo-scientific propaganda they use, which fools many laypeople but not me).

[Shinobi Bombay]

I am pro-life.I know it's not going to be popular to a lot of people when I say this but, Veganism is pro-life.Pro-life includes all life.It's not just about the senseless murdering of unborn children.It boggles my mind that people who profess a Vegan lifestyle for compassionate reasons(as opposed to health reasons)and still think that it is acceptable to murder their children.These selfish people should be thankful that they weren't aborted.
I know that is unpopular,so if you feel like hurling insults,..go ahead.I just gave my opinion.I'm not going to tell you what is right or what is wrong.You already know that.

[Shinobi Bombay]

It's a spiritual choice for me.Of course I'm a guy.So,I can't get pregnant. Thechnically,I think, life begins before conception.Your little spermys or eggs are alive.Just as much as a plant or any other biological thing/entity/whatever-it-is.For,the Church,the concept of when life begins is about when the soul enters the body.I am not going to tell someone what they should do with their pregnancy.As I said,they already know what is right and what is wrong.I do believe that the guiltier they feel about it, the louder they will protest against the (lacking a word for light/good/creative/God/spiritual) intuition or conscience we all possess.
So,from the postulate that life begins at conception-which is when the sperm penetrates the egg and it begins growing into a little human-then abortion is murder.
I know the church teaches against birth control,but I personally don't agree that condoms or whatever are a bad thing.
As for telling a Vegan how to behave,...I think that Vegans are gentler more compassionate beings by the very nature of the diet,let alone the 'paradigm' of Veganism and/or its philosophical ideals.
This is certainly one of those cases where one should just NOT DO the thing that they hate,instead of preaching.
And trust me,I know better than to argue with a scorned woman,let alone one experiencing the hormonal insanity of pregnancy.

[Shinobi Bombay]

Then how about we start a new one?

Lets call it something really provocative,...like pro-choice vegans are like carnivorous Christians,..:p

[Mr. Yellow Sunshine Pants]

Well, since no one started a new thread...

Donald Watson created the word vegan, and he defined "vegan" to protect animals from "cruelty". What is "cruelty"? Cruelty is defined here and as a neuroscientist I've seen no more proof that you CAN cause cruelty to an embryo, any more so than proof you can cause 'cruelty' to a PLANT. Veganism is anti-cruelty for animals NOT as you say "pro-life [which] includes all life" (emphasis added). Fruitarianism is "pro-all-life" ...they even try to protect non-sentient life such as plants, whereas Don Watson did not.

Bill starts with a False Premise (a Fallacy of Definition). By mis-defining the word "vegan" in a way that suits him, instead of the way the word's creator --who has never indicated he wanted the word he created, "vegan," applied to ABORTION of all things, AFAIK-- and as lexicogriphers define it, and maybe everyone except Bill and 5 other pro-life activists who happen to be vegan would define it. ;-P Bill then goes on to make his claims that pro-choice and veganism are incompatible, but those conclusions, since they're based on a False Premise (false definition of a word), are "fruit from the poison tree" (logically invalidated, non-sequitor). ...but since you claim to be in favor of "all life," then unless you adopt fruitarianism instead of veganism, wouldn't you be the "hypocrite"? (as you accused us of being on another veghaven webpage weeks ago...)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In what I see is your first post to this topic (a few posts above), you pre-supposed you will be insulted, whilst you threw out insults before anyone had a chance to insult you: "selfish" (against sentient beings, I'd say vegans mostly aren't selfish; but against non-sentients, damn right I'd put myself or any other sentient animal first), "murder" (Since you said you're pro-ALL-life, should we say you "murder" carrots? ;-) ), and in another veghaven webpage "hypocrisy".

Well, at least your insults/accusations were all on-topic. I don't see anything wrong with on-topic insults, IF they're true (unlike your accusations which I'm showing are based on "fallacious" logic ;-) ).

...and here's a Poison the Well fallacy to taint anything a pro-choicer says -- by falsely stereotyping them (just like Kellie pointed out that Bill tars groups with a "broad brush" on other issues): "the guiltier they feel about it, the louder they will protest". Would Bill like it if people said "Oh I see, Bill feels guilty about his sinning like most Catholics, and that's why Bill so "loudly" and repetitively proclaims himself Catholic and proclaims Allah to be "the Devil" (I'll link to Bill's blog that uses false stereotypes against Muslims and all things Islamic approx 1 page down from this post), etc. Well Billy, yes the real pious Catholics don't like your tattoos, and all your lack of self-control; it's easy to say "I'm Catholic," but much harder to follow eh?" Of course if people say that, they're just as wrong about those things, as Bill's claim that anyone who loudly opposes him "feels guilty" (or the things he says about Muslims). I'm the perfect example of WHY you're wrong to say "the guiltier they feel about it, the louder they will protest," because I protest louder (well at least with more wordiness LOL) than anyone on veghaven, yet I've never encouraged anyone to have an abortion in my personal life, never experimented on the unborn etc, so I have nothing related to abortion to feel guilty about. (But eating fried okra and then not working out when I should...that would make me feel guilty heh).
. . . Instead of alleviating some non-existent reasons that I should feel 'guilty,' my only interest is to expose your dishonest (logically fallacious) and unjustified lies against other veg'ns, from 'they must feel guilty if they loudly disagree with me' to your other ridiculous (fallacious, dishonest) accusations... Isn't it a sin to "bear false witness" against others? From the false definition of veganism that I showed you making at the top of this post, to poisoning the well (false derogatory stereotype of your opposition), you've used those and many more falsehoods against your ideological opponents. And would you want a Muslim to disseminate propaganda calling YOUR prophet (Jesus) "the devil," as you did to their prophet? Do unto others as you'd want them to do unto you. Didn't someone with the initials J.C. say that his True Followers(tm) should do that? ;-) Are false stereotypes against Muslims or pro-choicers (bearing false witness) what the Bible says to do? BTW, I'm not insulting you, Bill, I'm just giving my observations/opinions...to paraphrase your last post that says you're not trying to insult anyone. (only difference is, you have yet to prove that the reasons I form my opinions --and let me make it clear that my opinions are of Bill, not all Catholics-- are deceptive/fallacious, like I show most of your abortion opinions + attacks on Muslims, other veg'ns, etc to be).

I'm not accusing you of making these falsehoods on purpose, though. I'd just say that --just as you accused some pro-choicers of deceiving themselves-- you have potential reasons to deceive yourself (e.g. pro-life propaganda, wanting to be a good Catholic) just as much as some ardently anti-vegan omnivores were propagandized into All good Americans eat meat. (Wow and as an aside, who'd think that I could find a way that some pro-lifers and some omnivores share this similarity: "you've been given scientifically-false propaganda about animal/fetal sentience"... just like your GF accuses pro-choicers of sharing similarities with 'them,' 'the enemy of vegans'. ;-) ) See, the problem with the 'self-deceit' argument you and your GF have made (not to mention your GF's list comparing pro-choicers to omnivores...) is that is that your opposition can just-as-justifiably say the same things about pro-lifers. However, due to the "broad brush" reasons Kellie points out below I won't try to say that any subconscious motivations for 'self-deceit' necessarily applies to you personally, or certainly not to ALL pro-lifers; i.e. I won't imitate the way you guys have deceitfully stereotyped pro-choicers ("stereotyped" as in "broad brush" or even "straw man"; e.g. the Jan 1st 5:35pm, 7:21pm and 7:15pm posts... I'm truly sorry that I missed the fireworks when this subject first came up on Jan 1st ;-) ). I've seen many rational and many self-deceptive people on all sides of any debate.

You also say: "life begins before conception. Your little spermys or eggs are alive."
but a few lines later, you say "life begins at conception". (I see you have a well-formed, enlightened, consistent stance.)

[Mr. Yellow Sunshine Pants]

Of course both sides in the abortion debate try to sway people with semantics: "anti-choice" is my fave :-) but most "pro-lifers" are actually pro-human-life (whether the human in question can feel pain or not) and most vegan pro-lifers are actually pro-animal-life. My position is pro-sentient life, and that people shouldn't have a "choice" to harm others who feel pain, for the reasoning Sir Jeremy Bentham gave (the essay famous with vegans: "where do we trace the insuperable line"), but they should have the "choice" to do anything else. As a scientist, I deal with entities, and evidence+logic, and try to stick to the accepted definitions when defining those entities, instead of using "loaded words" or logical "fallacies of definition," which I just showed Bill using in my last post, but both sides use it. Or "I can wrap my shit in a pink ribbon, and it'll still stink" as the saying goes. :-)

Speaking of trying to sway people using semantics and "fallacies of definition," an embryo is not a "child" only a fetus can be called that:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/child
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are pro-choicers causing embryos to suffer, and are most vegans who aren't pro-life hypocritical? You'd convince me if you could prove:
* the unborn beings --even to the first day after conception...and I do agree with you that life starts there-- CAN feel pain. One of the reasons I say "to the first day after conception" is that you've lumped everyone who is not "pro-life" together, no matter if one person advocates only RU-486, which takes an unborn life up to 8 weeks old, or if someone else also advocates "standard" 1st-trimester abortions, or if they go all the way to advocating late-term abortions and smoking crack whilst pregnant. BTW, lumping all non-pro-lifers together is called a "black and white" fallacy of logic. :-) The reality is that people's views on abortion vary like shades of grey (or even purple ;-) ), yet you've over-simplified it into pro-life (white, "us") and non-pro-life (black, "them"). I'm taking the negative, or "non-existence of pain in embryos," position, thus the burden of proof lies on you before me.
* or alternately, you'd be correct if you proved that there's a reason to be compassionate toward life that can't feel pain (whether plants or embryos), if you accept that some embryos can't feel pain...which is why you'd need to resort to this "alternate" proof), and give me a reason that you'd grant rights to a non-sentient embryo even if it impedes on the (quite sentient) pregnant woman's rights?
* or alternately you could prove (as you say you have "spiritual reasons") that spirits exist. ;-)

"Pain" is a sensory experience that is felt via the A-delta and C fibers, after it is transmitted into the brain. Pain is not an auto-reflex reaction, and even venus flytraps are as capable of that reaction as embryos are (so unless you'd also propose a "murder" trial for anyone who kills a venus flytrap...ahm, yeah ;-) ). Once we enter the brain, how "pain" works gets too complex for a forum post to cover it all, but I'd be shocked if you could find me peer-reviewed proof that an embryo's A-delta and C fibers even connect to the brain at the END of the 1st trimester. ;-) )
I'll consider "scientific proof" to have credibility if it's peer-reviewed (and without any major methodological flaws noted during the peer process (typically improved upon in later studies), and without being overwhelmed by contradictory evidence that was even more widely accepted in peer-review). But proof is NOT: "proof" is not your subjective opinions (that is solipsism), "proof" is not "esotericism" or "faith" (these are also solipsism), and "proof" is not a propagandist website run by non-neuroscientists (who often don't comprehend the science that they make references to).
But then to justify your accusations, even if you could prove the above for embryos (since I already agree that fetuses feel pain), I'd also expect you to prove that:

1. A world without abortion would produce the most good, despite issues of overpopulation...and I'd expect your notations on how we shall avoid the dreaded "s curve" that most animal populations take (they suffer from that because they don't have abortion+birth-control. In the limited areas I've seen deer given birth-control, I find that way more humane than either letting them be hunted or letting them starve; this is the "third way" that hunters don't acknowledge as they promulgate a "false dichotomy" fallacy of logic :-) ), and the resulting deaths when we reach the top of said "s curve". Or alternatively, prove how you'd prevent overpopulation without abortion as part of your plan.
2. Then additionally, tell me how an already-stressed foster/adoption system (and alternatively, for those who can't give their kids away: the potential that parents would abuse unwanted children) can be repaired, because otherwise we run into the potential that it's most humane to abort. And there are possibly more societal problems that banning abortion can incur, but I can't be arsed to think of right now. Unlike whether or not embryos can feel pain, on this issue I don't think either side has good proof... as often happens with sociology and other social sciences.

Lets call it something really provocative,...like pro-choice vegans are like carnivorous Christians,..:p

That wouldn't be provocative, that would be the logical fallacy of False Analogy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy It's also non-sequitor (another form of flawed logic) unless you can prove your position on abortion, as I describe above.
. . . As hopefully I've shown in these 2 posts and my replies to your GF, you're both amazingly super-ultra-mega chock full o... flawed logic. ;-)

[Ellen Tietjen]

"They are not humans at that point. "

From the time that sperm joined egg you had all the genetic material you were ever going to have. What is it if not human? Is it a sea monkey that magically transforms at some point during pregnancy?


"I don't eat children!!"

So we can kill our pets when they are no longer convenient to own?

[Shinobi Bombay]

We seem to be living in a disposable society.Bic razors and fast food.Don't like your current job? get another on.Don't like your spouse?get another one.Don't like your dog or your baby?....It's sick. Again,I say that being a pro-choice Vegan is just as absurd as being a pro-life carnivore.

[Kellie]

Who gave you the right to determine what is absurd? I believe that is YOUR truth and YOUR perception, but it is not truth for everyone.

I have worked in the childbirth field for the last nine years, and you have every right to your own opinion, but I doubt you have seen the circumstances I have seen. If you believe in even ONE valid reason for abortion (woman's survival, rape, incest, et al), then your beliefs are not so black and white. Maybe you can see that painting everyone with a broad brush does not work so well.

We don't live in a black and white world. Well, maybe you do, but I don't.

[Shinobi Bombay]

Kellie,
I believe I did state that it was my personal opinion.And,no,I probably haven't seen the situations you have seen.I think there could be exceptions or rather reasonable exclusion from my pro-life stance in the case of abortion.If the mother was likely to die, for instance....But, not rape or inconvenience.The child could always be given up for adoption.There are plenty of childless couples who would love that baby as their own.
The interesting thing about truth is that it functions in all circumstances.That is what defines it as truth.While the demarcation between black and white can be a little fuzzy at times, it doesn't change reality on a physical level.Only the perception if the individual interprets the reality to suit their particular likes or dislikes.Therefor, truth is black and white.
I don't believe a child is disposable.And for me a child starts at the moment of conception;ie.,when the sperm penetrates the egg.
For that matter,as a Vegan.If there was no vegetation to consume, I might eat meat.