Abortion and Linguistic Nonsense

[Guest guest]

Hi Everyone!

 

I posted the website " vegan values " (http://www.veganvalues.org/) because I

found Dr. Sapon's scientific essays interesting and wanted to share this with

the list.

 

I did not get the impression that he was a pro lifer but if he is, I don't feel

that is relevant to his

essays on veganism.

 

I just read some of his essays and enjoyed his scientific recourse.

 

The only time he mentioned abortion IN HIS ENTIRE SITE was in an example about

NONSENSE and LINGUISTICS to prove a point about something else.

 

He choses his words carefully, saying that a faulty syllogism " Abortion is

murder " is an example of a " new definition " to persuade people (TO THEIR CAUSE

FOR INSTANCE).

 

Here is the section from his essay:

 

" LINGUISTIC NONSENSE

 

But nonsense, posing as serious thought, can also mean absurd, foolish, silly,

insane or preposterous pronouncements. It becomes even more deceptively

destructive when it claims to be a prestigious product of " scientific

investigation. "

 

Yes, there are abundant examples of nonsense in the cause of vegetarian

advocacy, as there inevitably are in any cause that seeks to persuade people to

think or act in new or unconventional ways. One form of nonsense avails itself

of the process of " re-naming " some activity or substance, using " new

definitions. " A prime example is one in which a " new definition " is fitted into

a faulty syllogism: " Abortion is murder. I have had an abortion. Therefore I am

a murderer. " It also instantly turns anyone who supports a woman’s reproductive

freedom into an accomplice to murder. Slogans like " Meat is murder " take the

same tack: if you would not be a murderer, stop eating meat. " Fur is murder, "

and so on. People are predictably very uncomfortable thinking of themselves as

murderers, so " murder " gets a lot of use in the arsenal of militant activists. "

 

Posting a site that is anti choice or irrelevant to Planet Vegan is not

something I would do. I do not get the impression that Dr.Sapon would interfere

with a woman’s reproductive freedom.

 

I dont know what I would do if I needed to cross that bridge myself, but I dont

think that getting cells removed my body is against animal rights. Thats my

personal opnion, and we each are entitled to one, especially around this

sensitive topic.

 

This list was created to discuss issues pertaining to Vegans such as health,

environment, diet and scientific issues. I know that any topic can theortically

fall under these catagories but I think that certain issues can be discussed off

list or directed to the person who posted the topic, off list.

 

I hope that clears up any questions of what Dr. Sapon was getting at and why I

posted it, and hope we can all enjoy the debates he put on his site without

opening up a huge off-topic on list debate about abortion.

 

Peace,

Bliss.

--

 

Free email services provided by http://www.goodkarmacafe.com

 

 

 

 

Powered by Instant Portal

[Guest guest]

Bliss made an important point by clarifying the nature of the web site,

but I still think that the abortion/animal-rights discussion is

interesting and appropriate for the list. The way I see it, unborn humans

and animals share certain properties in our culture. That is, they share

certain characteristics with full-fledged citizens, such as flesh, blood,

nervous systems, locomotion, but not others, such as language, full

self-consciousness, self-determination. As such, it doesn't make sense to

treat them as full-fledged citizens (e.g. animals/fetuses can't pay

taxes), but instinctively we feel that they should have some of the rights

that are accorded to citizens.

 

The fundamental question then is where along the spectrum between no

rights (inanimate objects) and full rights (ID-card-carrying citizens)

these beings should be placed. This question is still of course hotly

debated, and I personally believe that intelligent, ethical people can

respectfully disagree on the answer.

 

As a pro-choice vegan, I would say the following: while it is difficult to

assess the cognitive abilities of either unborn humans or animals, we

could apply a few criteria: Are they able to feel pain? certain animals,

yes; unborns, after a certain point, yes. Are they able to form

relationships and attachments to other beings? certain animals, yes;

unborns, after a certain point, yes (with their mothers). Are they able to

have hope for the future? certain animals, yes, I believe so; unborns, I

would doubt it, even for a relatively developed fetus.

 

These are just a few criteria I chose arbitrarily, but for me personally

they seem intuitively as reasonably good, although not precise, measures

of whether a being should be accorded rights. Therefore, I believe that

one could make the case that because unborn humans, before a certain point

in their development, have little or none of these characteristics, they

don't have certain rights. For instance, they don't have the right to be

born regardless of the desire of their mother to give birth.

 

Meanwhile, it is perhaps worth noting that while gnats are animals, they

also do not meet any of the above criteria, and for that reason, don't

have certain rights either.

 

Anyway, while I concede that we are indeed in fact all hypocrites at some

level, and that it is also problematic to construct this kind of hierarchy

of beings, I think there is a definite case to be made for the concordance

of animal rights and abortion rights.

 

Clark