Hi, gang,

Recently, I heard about someone back east who claimed to be a vegetarian
because he did not want to cause pain and death to any animals. That
sounds good. Though I am on a vegan diet for medical reasons, I have
respect for ethical vegans and other ethical vegetarians.

However, this guy blows my mind with his strange logic. You see he may be
an ethical vegetarian because he does not want to take a life, but he is
also a living oxymoron. Tell me something, does this sound like an
oxymoron to you. He is an ethical vegetarian abortionist. Say what? How
can one be against killing on ethical grounds, while killing everyday
himself?


--
Andy Rugg - The Cheerful Pickle
To email me, please remove "postheap" from my email address. Thanks.

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 22:07:09 -0700, Cheerful Pickle > wrote:

>Hi, gang,
>
>Recently, I heard about someone back east who claimed to be a vegetarian
>because he did not want to cause pain and death to any animals. That
>sounds good. Though I am on a vegan diet for medical reasons, I have
>respect for ethical vegans and other ethical vegetarians.
>
>However, this guy blows my mind with his strange logic. You see he may be
>an ethical vegetarian because he does not want to take a life, but he is
>also a living oxymoron. Tell me something, does this sound like an
>oxymoron to you. He is an ethical vegetarian abortionist. Say what? How
>can one be against killing on ethical grounds, while killing everyday
>himself?

· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use
of wood and paper products, and roads and all types of
buildings, and by their own diet just as everyone else does.
What vegans try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following in order to be successful:
__________________________________________________ _______
Tires, Surgical sutures, Matches, Soaps, Photographic film,
Cosmetics, Shaving cream, Paints, Candles, Crayon/Chalk,
Toothpaste, Deodorants, Mouthwash, Paper, Upholstery,
Floor waxes, Glass, Water Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer,
Antifreeze

http://www.aif.org/lvstock.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
Ceramics, Insecticides, Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic,
Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen, Heparin, Insulin,
Pancreatin, Thrombin, Vasopressin, Vitamin B-12, Asphalt,
auto and jet lubricants, outboard engine oil, high-performance
greases, brake fluid

http://www.teachfree.com/student/wow_that_cow.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
contact-lens care products, glues for paper and cardboard
cartons, bookbinding glue, clarification of wines, Hemostats,
sunscreens and sunblocks, dental floss, hairspray, inks, PVC

http://www.discover.com/aug_01/featcow.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
Explosives, Solvents, Industrial Oils, Industrial Lubricants,
Stearic Acid, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides, Syringes,
Gelatin Capsules, Bandage Strips, Combs and Toothbrushes,
Emery Boards and Cloth, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products,
Plywood and Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane
Wrap and Tape, Adhesive Tape, Abrasives, Bone Charcoal for High
Grade Steel, Steel Ball Bearings

http://www.sheepusa.org/environment/products.shtml
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die in it as they do
in any other habitat. They also depend on it for their
lives like the animals in any other habitat. If people
consume animal products from animals they think are
raised in decent ways, they will be promoting life for
more such animals in the future.
From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat. From a grass
raised dairy cow people get thousands of servings of dairy
products. Due to the influence of farm machinery, and *icides,
and in the case of rice the flooding and draining of fields,
one serving of soy or rice based product is likely to involve
more animal deaths than hundreds of servings derived from grass
raised cattle. Grass raised cattle products contribute to less
wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and decent lives for
cattle. ·

"Cheerful Pickle" > wrote in message
...
> Hi, gang,
>
> Recently, I heard about someone back east who claimed to be a vegetarian
> because he did not want to cause pain and death to any animals. That
> sounds good. Though I am on a vegan diet for medical reasons, I have
> respect for ethical vegans and other ethical vegetarians.
>
> However, this guy blows my mind with his strange logic. You see he may be
> an ethical vegetarian because he does not want to take a life, but he is
> also a living oxymoron. Tell me something, does this sound like an
> oxymoron to you. He is an ethical vegetarian abortionist. Say what? How
> can one be against killing on ethical grounds, while killing everyday
> himself?

Ethical vegetarians are often (not always, but often) liberals to begin
with. So they were probably already pro-abortion before they went off on
this thing. I agree with you that someone who really cares about other
living things will be against abortion (unless it's necessary, like the
removal of an ectopic).

-Rubystars

Hi, ,

Instead of doing the traditional showing of all or part of your post, I
merged the lists, alphabetized it and deleted the ones I chose not to
comment on. The ones I chose not to comment on I simply don't know enough
about them to make even the dumbest of comments :-) or have nothing
significant to say. If I am mistaken in any of my observations, please let
me know so that I can correct my thinking. Thanks.

Abrasives - I imagine that would depend on the abrasive involved.
For instance, diamonds, which come from a quarter billion year
old plants should not result in any animal deaths, at least not
for the last 250 million years when some tree fell crushing some
primitive frog.
Antifreeze - Really, everyone knows antifreeze will kill a dog.
Asphalt - I find it interesting that you would include asphalt but not
concrete, since, when poured, either will kill whatever is in the
soil beneath them
Auto and jet lubricants - like with a lot of the other products listed
in your lists, it would depend on what they were made of, I suppose.
Blood factors - definitely, but only if they came from animal blood. If
the factors came from blood drawn from blood banks, well that would
be different.
Bone Charcoal for High Grade Steel - obviously
Candles - while some candles are made from bee's wax (the taking of which
may or may not involve taking a bee's life, others are made strictly
from paraffin (made from petroleum) which should not kill anything.
Collagen - like with blood factors mentioned above
Crayon/Chalk - Most crayons are paraffin based (see candles above) and chalk
is a mineral made from animals that died thousands, if not millions of
years ago, how does that kill animals?
Fertilizer - Some fertilizers, definitely, such as those made from bone
meal or blood meal. With others it would depend on the specific
fertilizer and how it is applied. I would find it hard to believe
that a solution made from water with manure dissolved in it would kill
even insects in a field if sprinkled on.
Glass - the last I knew, glass is made primarily of silicon dioxide (quartz)
and other inorganic compounds
Hemostats - hemostats are made from steel. The last I heard, steel is
inorganic
Insecticides - duh, gee, that one is so obvious
Insulation - again, it would depend on the origin
Insulin - almost all insulin production today comes from genetically
engineered bacteria, and, according to biologists, bacteria are
not part of the animal kingdom
Paints - some paints have an entirely inorganic base, so it would then
depend solely on the origin of the pigments, whether they were animal
based, plant based or manmade.
Rubber - are you talking about natural or synthetic rubber, they are two
different things
Soaps - obviously those soaps still made from rendered animal fats are
killers, but are others made from synthetic products
Solvents - wait just one minute here, the most universally used solvent on
the planet is water
Syringes - if that is true (I don't know) then maybe we should go back to
the old reusable syringes that needed to be autoclaved between uses,
since there need be no animal deaths from the manufacture of glass
Textiles - Are you referring to animal based textiles (such as wool), plant
based textiles (such as cotton or linen) or synthetic textiles (such as
rayon)?
Upholstery - obviously leather based upholstery is a killer, but what about
synthetic based upholstery
Vitamin B-12 - someday there may be a technology developed to make synthetic
vitamin B-12 chemically identical to the natural vitamin

I suppose some people could get real silly and lament over the death of some
gnat that is dumb enough to choose to get too close to a vat of molten
steel in a steel mill. I hope no one would count that as any kind of
animal cruelty. Actually, I think some vegans can go to too much of an
extreme in this area. Imagine, for instance, that the whole would use
non-animal based substitutes for rendered fat for soaps, for blood-based or
bone-based fertilizers, for meat for consumption by people, dogs, cats and
zoo animals, and for all possible leather products. In that case, the laws
of economics would make animal based perfumes, etc. so expensive that
industry would be quick to find find vegan alternatives. After all, if you
had to kill a cow (from whose meat alone you got $2000 in income) and the
only thing that you found you could sell from that meat was an ounce of
some enzyme that normally sold for $25 an ounce then you would have to sell
that enzyme for over $2000 an ounce. That would give the users of that
enzyme a powerful economic incentive to find a less expensive substitute,
even if it cost $1000 an ounce.


--
Andy Rugg - The Cheerful Pickle
To email me, please remove "postheap" from my email address. Thanks.

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 11:47:11 -0700, Cheerful Pickle > wrote:

>Hi, ,
>
>Instead of doing the traditional showing of all or part of your post, I
>merged the lists, alphabetized it and deleted the ones I chose not to
>comment on. The ones I chose not to comment on I simply don't know enough
>about them to make even the dumbest of comments :-) or have nothing
>significant to say. If I am mistaken in any of my observations, please let
>me know so that I can correct my thinking. Thanks.
>
>Abrasives - I imagine that would depend on the abrasive involved.
> For instance, diamonds, which come from a quarter billion year
> old plants should not result in any animal deaths, at least not
> for the last 250 million years when some tree fell crushing some
> primitive frog.
>Antifreeze - Really, everyone knows antifreeze will kill a dog.
>Asphalt - I find it interesting that you would include asphalt but not
> concrete, since, when poured, either will kill whatever is in the
> soil beneath them
>Auto and jet lubricants - like with a lot of the other products listed
> in your lists, it would depend on what they were made of, I suppose.
>Blood factors - definitely, but only if they came from animal blood. If
> the factors came from blood drawn from blood banks, well that would
> be different.
>Bone Charcoal for High Grade Steel - obviously
>Candles - while some candles are made from bee's wax (the taking of which
> may or may not involve taking a bee's life, others are made strictly
> from paraffin (made from petroleum) which should not kill anything.
>Collagen - like with blood factors mentioned above
>Crayon/Chalk - Most crayons are paraffin based (see candles above) and chalk
> is a mineral made from animals that died thousands, if not millions of
> years ago, how does that kill animals?
>Fertilizer - Some fertilizers, definitely, such as those made from bone
> meal or blood meal. With others it would depend on the specific
> fertilizer and how it is applied. I would find it hard to believe
> that a solution made from water with manure dissolved in it would kill
> even insects in a field if sprinkled on.
>Glass - the last I knew, glass is made primarily of silicon dioxide (quartz)
> and other inorganic compounds
>Hemostats - hemostats are made from steel. The last I heard, steel is
> inorganic
>Insecticides - duh, gee, that one is so obvious
>Insulation - again, it would depend on the origin
>Insulin - almost all insulin production today comes from genetically
> engineered bacteria, and, according to biologists, bacteria are
> not part of the animal kingdom
>Paints - some paints have an entirely inorganic base, so it would then
> depend solely on the origin of the pigments, whether they were animal
> based, plant based or manmade.
>Rubber - are you talking about natural or synthetic rubber, they are two
> different things
>Soaps - obviously those soaps still made from rendered animal fats are
> killers, but are others made from synthetic products
>Solvents - wait just one minute here, the most universally used solvent on
> the planet is water
>Syringes - if that is true (I don't know) then maybe we should go back to
> the old reusable syringes that needed to be autoclaved between uses,
> since there need be no animal deaths from the manufacture of glass
>Textiles - Are you referring to animal based textiles (such as wool), plant
> based textiles (such as cotton or linen) or synthetic textiles (such as
> rayon)?
>Upholstery - obviously leather based upholstery is a killer, but what about
> synthetic based upholstery
>Vitamin B-12 - someday there may be a technology developed to make synthetic
> vitamin B-12 chemically identical to the natural vitamin
>
>I suppose some people could get real silly and lament over the death of some
>gnat that is dumb enough to choose to get too close to a vat of molten
>steel in a steel mill.

Gnats are dumb, due in part to having no brain. They also have no
way of learning about molten steel, and by the time they do find out
that they should stay away from it it's often too late for them. But no
one is talking about gnats anyway. Those items are things which use
by-products from animals raised for food. Ethical veg*ns need to explain
how those things could all be produced without using animal by-products.
They need to first explain exactly how those by-products are used in
the processes, and then what veg*n alternatives could be substituted
for them. They also need to explain how elimination of farm animals would
be better for farm animals than providing them with decent lives.

>I hope no one would count that as any kind of
>animal cruelty. Actually, I think some vegans can go to too much of an
>extreme in this area. Imagine, for instance, that the whole would use
>non-animal based substitutes

That is the point at which you/they need to explain how it would help
farm animals to do so, instead of to provide them with decent lives. As yet
no one has been able to do that, and imo no one ever will.

>for rendered fat for soaps, for blood-based or
>bone-based fertilizers, for meat for consumption by people, dogs, cats and
>zoo animals, and for all possible leather products. In that case, the laws
>of economics would make animal based perfumes, etc. so expensive that
>industry would be quick to find find vegan alternatives. After all, if you
>had to kill a cow (from whose meat alone you got $2000 in income) and the
>only thing that you found you could sell from that meat was an ounce of
>some enzyme that normally sold for $25 an ounce then you would have to sell
>that enzyme for over $2000 an ounce. That would give the users of that
>enzyme a powerful economic incentive to find a less expensive substitute,
>even if it cost $1000 an ounce.

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 16:38:37 GMT, "Rubystars" > wrote:

>
>"Cheerful Pickle" > wrote in message
...
>> Hi, gang,
>>
>> Recently, I heard about someone back east who claimed to be a vegetarian
>> because he did not want to cause pain and death to any animals. That
>> sounds good. Though I am on a vegan diet for medical reasons, I have
>> respect for ethical vegans and other ethical vegetarians.
>>
>> However, this guy blows my mind with his strange logic. You see he may be
>> an ethical vegetarian because he does not want to take a life, but he is
>> also a living oxymoron. Tell me something, does this sound like an
>> oxymoron to you. He is an ethical vegetarian abortionist. Say what? How
>> can one be against killing on ethical grounds, while killing everyday
>> himself?
>
>Ethical vegetarians are often (not always, but often) liberals to begin
>with. So they were probably already pro-abortion before they went off on
>this thing. I agree with you that someone who really cares about other
>living things will be against abortion (unless it's necessary, like the
>removal of an ectopic).
>
>-Rubystars

In some cities there are more abortions than births. That being the
case it's pretty likely that there are plenty of other cities in which there
are half as many. Who do you suggest raise all of the aborted children
that the parents don't want to raise? While you're figuring it out, keep
in mind that the number of children needing to be raised would probably
be half or more of the total number born already, which would mean
another half of an Earth worth of them.

*yawn*

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
> small minds yield small results! <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 16:38:37 GMT, "Rubystars" >
wrote:
>
> >
> >"Cheerful Pickle" > wrote in
message
> ...
> >> Hi, gang,
> >>
> >> Recently, I heard about someone back east who claimed to be a
vegetarian
> >> because he did not want to cause pain and death to any animals. That
> >> sounds good. Though I am on a vegan diet for medical reasons, I have
> >> respect for ethical vegans and other ethical vegetarians.
> >>
> >> However, this guy blows my mind with his strange logic. You see he may
be
> >> an ethical vegetarian because he does not want to take a life, but he
is
> >> also a living oxymoron. Tell me something, does this sound like an
> >> oxymoron to you. He is an ethical vegetarian abortionist. Say what?
How
> >> can one be against killing on ethical grounds, while killing everyday
> >> himself?
> >
> >Ethical vegetarians are often (not always, but often) liberals to begin
> >with. So they were probably already pro-abortion before they went off on
> >this thing. I agree with you that someone who really cares about other
> >living things will be against abortion (unless it's necessary, like the
> >removal of an ectopic).
> >
> >-Rubystars
>
> In some cities there are more abortions than births.

Sickening.

>That being the
> case it's pretty likely that there are plenty of other cities in which
there
> are half as many.

Yep.

> Who do you suggest raise all of the aborted children
> that the parents don't want to raise?

I suggest that the girls stop being little sluts and wait until they're
married to have sex and children.

I think that any pregnant teen who doesn't want her baby can put them up for
adoption though.

>While you're figuring it out, keep
> in mind that the number of children needing to be raised would probably
> be half or more of the total number born already, which would mean
> another half of an Earth worth of them.

I really don't think that there are that many abortions. I think in some
areas it's a bad problem but in other areas it's not.

-Rubystars

wrote:

>
> In some cities there are more abortions than births. That being the
> case it's pretty likely that there are plenty of other cities in which
> there are half as many. Who do you suggest raise all of the aborted
> children that the parents don't want to raise? While you're figuring it
> out, keep in mind that the number of children needing to be raised would
> probably be half or more of the total number born already, which would
> mean another half of an Earth worth of them.

Before abortions became popular, it was relatively easy for people who
wanted to adopt to do so. I know, it was not my natural mother that took
me home from the hospital the day after I was born in 1946, it was my
adopted parents. Today, it is very hard to adopt children from the United
States, forcing prospective adoptive parents to go to China, Russia,
Romania, etc. to adopt. Of course, only the more affluent can handle the
large expenses involved in doing that, leaving many potential good parents
with no one they can adopt. Even many people who can afford to raise a
child might not be in a position to fork out $30,000 or so up front for an
out of country adoption. (I don't think my parents could have, though they
raised me well, including the cost of college.) I am not sure if there is
sufficient number of potential adoptive parents, but I suspect that there
probably would be.


--
Andy Rugg - The Cheerful Pickle
To email me, please remove "postheap" from my email address. Thanks.

.....
>
> > Who do you suggest raise all of the aborted children
> > that the parents don't want to raise?
>
> I suggest that the girls stop being little sluts and wait until they're
> married to have sex and children.
>
WOAH. "stop being little sluts and wait until they're married?" that sure
is a strong statement. 'slutty girls' aren't the only folks that have
abortions, people of all ages screw up and have accidents. sure, you're
probably more likely not to have one if you're married, since you've got the
support of the family unit and whatnot....but that just opened a whole can
of beans. why should a woman have to "wait" until she is married, or even
get married at all, to enjoy sex? having sex out of wedlock doesn't make
someone a slut. marriage isn't the damned 'be all and end all,' and women
are entirely able to have responsible, safe, 'consenting adult' sex without
a marriage certificate.

> I think that any pregnant teen who doesn't want her baby can put them up
for
> adoption though.
.....

"Cheerful Pickle" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>
> >
> > In some cities there are more abortions than births. That being the
> > case it's pretty likely that there are plenty of other cities in which
> > there are half as many. Who do you suggest raise all of the aborted
> > children that the parents don't want to raise? While you're figuring it
> > out, keep in mind that the number of children needing to be raised would
> > probably be half or more of the total number born already, which would
> > mean another half of an Earth worth of them.
>
> Before abortions became popular, it was relatively easy for people who
> wanted to adopt to do so. I know, it was not my natural mother that took
> me home from the hospital the day after I was born in 1946, it was my
> adopted parents. Today, it is very hard to adopt children from the United
> States, forcing prospective adoptive parents to go to China, Russia,
> Romania, etc. to adopt. Of course, only the more affluent can handle the
> large expenses involved in doing that, leaving many potential good parents
> with no one they can adopt. Even many people who can afford to raise a
> child might not be in a position to fork out $30,000 or so up front for an
> out of country adoption.

domestic adoption costs just as much, at up to $30 000 a pop. i remember
hearing about some scandal on the news a little while back about how
agencies were charging way more for white babies, since they were in high
demand, whereas all of these domestic black babies were much less wanted and
less adopted. that sucks. kids need love no matter what colour they are,
or what country they're from. there are enough out there, we don't need to
make abortions illegal and put women through unwanted pregnancies to fuel
the domestic adoption business.

(I don't think my parents could have, though they
> raised me well, including the cost of college.) I am not sure if there is
> sufficient number of potential adoptive parents, but I suspect that there
> probably would be.
>
>
> --
> Andy Rugg - The Cheerful Pickle
> To email me, please remove "postheap" from my email address. Thanks.

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 19:49:10 GMT, "Rubystars" > wrote:

>
> wrote in message
.. .
>> On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 16:38:37 GMT, "Rubystars" >
>wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Cheerful Pickle" > wrote in
>message
>> ...
>> >> Hi, gang,
>> >>
>> >> Recently, I heard about someone back east who claimed to be a
>vegetarian
>> >> because he did not want to cause pain and death to any animals. That
>> >> sounds good. Though I am on a vegan diet for medical reasons, I have
>> >> respect for ethical vegans and other ethical vegetarians.
>> >>
>> >> However, this guy blows my mind with his strange logic. You see he may
>be
>> >> an ethical vegetarian because he does not want to take a life, but he
>is
>> >> also a living oxymoron. Tell me something, does this sound like an
>> >> oxymoron to you. He is an ethical vegetarian abortionist. Say what?
>How
>> >> can one be against killing on ethical grounds, while killing everyday
>> >> himself?
>> >
>> >Ethical vegetarians are often (not always, but often) liberals to begin
>> >with. So they were probably already pro-abortion before they went off on
>> >this thing. I agree with you that someone who really cares about other
>> >living things will be against abortion (unless it's necessary, like the
>> >removal of an ectopic).
>> >
>> >-Rubystars
>>
>> In some cities there are more abortions than births.
>
>Sickening.

Well, we have to live with it. Every egg is a potential human,
and every sperm for that matter. If a person decides not to have
a child for say 5 years, there are many potential children who
won't experience life during that time, and many more after even
if they do have one after 5 years. Only a tiny percentage of them
actually become humans.

>>That being the
>> case it's pretty likely that there are plenty of other cities in which
>there
>> are half as many.
>
>Yep.
>
>> Who do you suggest raise all of the aborted children
>> that the parents don't want to raise?
>
>I suggest that the girls stop being little sluts and wait until they're
>married to have sex and children.
>
>I think that any pregnant teen who doesn't want her baby can put them up for
>adoption though.
>
>>While you're figuring it out, keep
>> in mind that the number of children needing to be raised would probably
>> be half or more of the total number born already, which would mean
>> another half of an Earth worth of them.
>
>I really don't think that there are that many abortions. I think in some
>areas it's a bad problem but in other areas it's not.
>
>-Rubystars

This isn't really my thing, but if you want to check into if further
here's a bit to get started with:
__________________________________________________ _______
One out of every 4 babies conceived in the United States is aborted. In
more than 14 metropolitan areas, abortions out number live births. More
than 30 million abortions have occurred since 1973. Each year 1.5 million
unborn babies die by abortion. (2)

http://www.hhpcc.com/facts.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
How many abortions are performed in California each year? The truth is,
no one knows -- and California, unlike most states, is making almost no
effort to find out.
[...]
According to the federal government, California was second only to New
York in the ratio of abortions to live births in 1996. For every 1000 live births,
there were 519 abortions. The ratio in New York was 580 abortions for
every 1000 live births. The national average for the same year was 314
per 1000.

http://www.losangelesmission.com/ed/...002/0602bm.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
Other than the District of Columbia, which had more abortions than it did
live births(!), the five states with the highest ratios of abortions to 1,000
live births were New York (547), California (525), Delaware (501), Rhode
Island (440), and Florida (425).

http://www.usembassy-china.org.cn/sandt/ru486.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
Recently released preliminary results from the 1999 Ukraine Reproductive
Health Survey document an alarming level of abortions among Ukrainian
women. Almost 40 percent of all women age 15 to 44 have had at least
one abortion, and 18 percent had at least two abortions. Since January
1994 almost half of all the pregnancies that ended were terminated by
induced abortions, and there were more abortions reported than live births.

http://www.ukrweekly.com/Archive/2000/360012.shtml
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
How many abortions are there in China? Statistics compiled by the Ministry
of Health (MOH) and the State Family Planning Commission (SFPC) have
diverged sharply since 1992. In 1992, both government agencies put the
number of abortions at 10 million. But by 1994, MOH reported 9.46 million
abortions, and the SFPC only 6.28 million. By 1998, the gap had grown to
7.38 million (MOH) vs. 2.63 million (SFPC).

http://www.usembassy-china.org.cn/sandt/ru486.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
# Nearly a quarter of all 1996 births in Colorado (24.8 percent) were to
unwed mothers. For comparison, the figure for unwed mothers giving birth
in Colorado in 1940 was 2 percent; in 1950, 3 percent; in 1960, 4.2 percent;
in 1970 9.6 percent; in 1980, 13 percent; and in 1990, 21.2 percent. 3
[...]
# Of the 9,710 abortions performed in 1996, women receiving their second
abortion accounted for 23.7 percent (2,298). Women receiving their third
abortion totaled 716 (7.4%) and women receiving at least their fourth abortion
accounted for 3.1 percent (299) of all abortions. 5

http://www.rmfc.org/adv98wi.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
In the midst of a pro-life post, Sara of Diotima surprised me by pointing out that
70,000 women die each year from unsafe abortions.
[...]
There is no serious doubt that pro-life laws lead to increased death and injuries
due to unsafe abortions. Furthermore, as the Netherlands show, it's possible to
have the world's lowest rate of abortion by concentrating on reducing demand,
rather than by threatening doctors and mothers with jail time.

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/001288.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 17:37:18 -0700, Cheerful Pickle > wrote:

wrote:
>
>>
>> In some cities there are more abortions than births. That being the
>> case it's pretty likely that there are plenty of other cities in which
>> there are half as many. Who do you suggest raise all of the aborted
>> children that the parents don't want to raise? While you're figuring it
>> out, keep in mind that the number of children needing to be raised would
>> probably be half or more of the total number born already, which would
>> mean another half of an Earth worth of them.
>
>Before abortions became popular, it was relatively easy for people who
>wanted to adopt to do so. I know, it was not my natural mother that took
>me home from the hospital the day after I was born in 1946, it was my
>adopted parents.

Wow! How fortunate for you, and them.

>Today, it is very hard to adopt children from the United
>States,

Why is that?

>forcing prospective adoptive parents to go to China, Russia,
>Romania, etc. to adopt. Of course, only the more affluent can handle the
>large expenses involved in doing that, leaving many potential good parents
>with no one they can adopt. Even many people who can afford to raise a
>child might not be in a position to fork out $30,000 or so up front for an
>out of country adoption. (I don't think my parents could have, though they
>raised me well, including the cost of college.) I am not sure if there is
>sufficient number of potential adoptive parents, but I suspect that there
>probably would be.

That's not my impression, because of the huge number of abortions,
and how high a percentage in relation to births...and then the number
of unplanned births needs to be factored in somehow too I would think.
But, even if it only reduced the number of abortions by a low percentage,
that could still mean decent lives for a LOT of kids. Of course we're not
supposed to consider decent lives as a moral issue--only horrible lives
and death, which would be involved as well--but I consider decent lives
as well as the other even if we're not supposed to.

It sounds like your parents had made some type of arrangements prior
to your birth. Surely they didn't just go down to the hospital one day and
say: "That's a cute little cucumber. We'll take it if your sure no one else
wants to keep it." I've been wondering for years why womem can't make
arrangements to carry a child even if they don't want to raise it, then have
someone like your folks ready to raise the child when the time comes, and
probably give the mother herself something for her time and inconvenience.
Why doesn't that work?

....
> __________________________________________________ _______
> In the midst of a pro-life post, Sara of Diotima surprised me by pointing
out that
> 70,000 women die each year from unsafe abortions.
> [...]
> There is no serious doubt that pro-life laws lead to increased death and
injuries
> due to unsafe abortions. Furthermore, as the Netherlands show, it's
possible to
> have the world's lowest rate of abortion by concentrating on reducing
demand,
> rather than by threatening doctors and mothers with jail time.
>
> http://www.amptoons.com/blog/001288.html
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
great link! thanks for posting ()

"katie" > wrote in message
.rogers.com...
> ....
> >
> > > Who do you suggest raise all of the aborted children
> > > that the parents don't want to raise?
> >
> > I suggest that the girls stop being little sluts and wait until they're
> > married to have sex and children.
> >
> WOAH. "stop being little sluts and wait until they're married?" that
sure
> is a strong statement.

You're right. That was a little over the top. Sorry.

Still, it makes me angry when girls think they can have sex without any
consequences. If they don't use protection: condoms and chemical
contraceptives, they are choosing to conceive and should therefore deal with
the consequences of that choice.

> 'slutty girls' aren't the only folks that have
> abortions, people of all ages screw up and have accidents.

Which could be prevented with a little common sense.

>sure, you're
> probably more likely not to have one if you're married, since you've got
the
> support of the family unit and whatnot....but that just opened a whole can
> of beans. why should a woman have to "wait" until she is married, or even
> get married at all, to enjoy sex?

Fornication is a sin.

>having sex out of wedlock doesn't make
> someone a slut.

You're right, if they're not promiscuous. Unfortunately I think a lot of
these kids are promiscuous.

> marriage isn't the damned 'be all and end all,' and women
> are entirely able to have responsible, safe, 'consenting adult' sex
without
> a marriage certificate.

Sure they can. That's their legal right, but I don't think they have a right
to kill a baby.

-Rubystars

"Rubystars" > wrote in message
...
>
> "katie" > wrote in message
> .rogers.com...
> > ....
> > >
> > > > Who do you suggest raise all of the aborted children
> > > > that the parents don't want to raise?
> > >
> > > I suggest that the girls stop being little sluts and wait until
they're
> > > married to have sex and children.
> > >
> > WOAH. "stop being little sluts and wait until they're married?" that
> sure
> > is a strong statement.
>
> You're right. That was a little over the top. Sorry.
>
> Still, it makes me angry when girls think they can have sex without any
> consequences. If they don't use protection: condoms and chemical
> contraceptives, they are choosing to conceive and should therefore deal
with
> the consequences of that choice.
>
honestly, i really think that when young folks make dangerous choices about
sex, it's partially because of their really crappy sex ed (which i remember
as a grade 5 lecture by a visiting lady named 'mrs. dick' i kid you not.
all i remember is a class filled with giggling at her and the word 'penis.'
and the sex ed in grade 9 gym that consisted of passing around a diaphragm,
condom, and pill-case, learning some anatomy, and watching a horrifying
video about childbirth...not terribly enlightening). teenagers are living
in some kind of bubble where they don't see the consequences of their
actions so much until it's too late. the whole 'i'm indestructible thing'
that goes along with all reckless decisions at that age. you just don't
think about it. knowing that, it seems that really thorough sex ed and
stuff like the 'baby think it over' program are extra important, cause kids
are having sex before they're really mature enough to get the responsability
that goes with it.

> > 'slutty girls' aren't the only folks that have
> > abortions, people of all ages screw up and have accidents.
>
> Which could be prevented with a little common sense.

which we definitely need to instill with good sex ed. if you've got grade 7
kids giving each other blowjobs cause they think it's a 'cool' and safe
alternative to sex, that might indicate that the kids are thinking about sex
as a commodity of coolness, and need some education about respecting
themselves.
>
> >sure, you're
> > probably more likely not to have one if you're married, since you've got
> the
> > support of the family unit and whatnot....but that just opened a whole
can
> > of beans. why should a woman have to "wait" until she is married, or
even
> > get married at all, to enjoy sex?
>
> Fornication is a sin.

if you subscribe to certain religions. if your religion guides your sexual
practices, that's great for you. it'll serve as your guide to what is
acceptable to you. but that doesn't apply to everyone.
>
> >having sex out of wedlock doesn't make
> > someone a slut.
>
> You're right, if they're not promiscuous. Unfortunately I think a lot of
> these kids are promiscuous.

i think it's partially because sex is treated as such a taboo thing, and no
one's teaching them enough about it. if it seems really normal, and you
remind them that their parents do it (which would make them want to become
nuns, i'm sure), and you demystify and de-cool it, and teach folks to do it
when they're truly ready and in a way that respects themselves, there'd be
less of that happening. good sex ed.
>
> > marriage isn't the damned 'be all and end all,' and women
> > are entirely able to have responsible, safe, 'consenting adult' sex
> without
> > a marriage certificate.
>
> Sure they can. That's their legal right, but I don't think they have a
right
> to kill a baby.
>
kill a baby, no. but we're talking about a fetus here.

"katie" > wrote in message
.rogers.com...
>
> "Rubystars" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "katie" > wrote in message
> > .rogers.com...
> > > ....
> > > >
> > > > > Who do you suggest raise all of the aborted children
> > > > > that the parents don't want to raise?
> > > >
> > > > I suggest that the girls stop being little sluts and wait until
> they're
> > > > married to have sex and children.
> > > >
> > > WOAH. "stop being little sluts and wait until they're married?" that
> > sure
> > > is a strong statement.
> >
> > You're right. That was a little over the top. Sorry.
> >
> > Still, it makes me angry when girls think they can have sex without any
> > consequences. If they don't use protection: condoms and chemical
> > contraceptives, they are choosing to conceive and should therefore deal
> with
> > the consequences of that choice.
> >
> honestly, i really think that when young folks make dangerous choices
about
> sex, it's partially because of their really crappy sex ed (which i
remember
> as a grade 5 lecture by a visiting lady named 'mrs. dick' i kid you not.
> all i remember is a class filled with giggling at her and the word
'penis.'
> and the sex ed in grade 9 gym that consisted of passing around a
diaphragm,
> condom, and pill-case, learning some anatomy, and watching a horrifying
> video about childbirth...not terribly enlightening). teenagers are living
> in some kind of bubble where they don't see the consequences of their
> actions so much until it's too late. the whole 'i'm indestructible thing'
> that goes along with all reckless decisions at that age.

Which is exactly why they should be celibate.

> you just don't
> think about it. knowing that, it seems that really thorough sex ed and
> stuff like the 'baby think it over' program are extra important, cause
kids
> are having sex before they're really mature enough to get the
responsability
> that goes with it.

Yeah. You'd think they could at least go get some condoms. They're *not*
hard to come by. They're at every grocery store and drug store, and most
convenience stores. They're not prohibitively expensive either.

> > > 'slutty girls' aren't the only folks that have
> > > abortions, people of all ages screw up and have accidents.
> >
> > Which could be prevented with a little common sense.
>
> which we definitely need to instill with good sex ed. if you've got grade
7
> kids giving each other blowjobs cause they think it's a 'cool' and safe
> alternative to sex, that might indicate that the kids are thinking about
sex
> as a commodity of coolness, and need some education about respecting
> themselves.

Yeah. I agree with you on the better sex ed bit.

> > >sure, you're
> > > probably more likely not to have one if you're married, since you've
got
> > the
> > > support of the family unit and whatnot....but that just opened a whole
> can
> > > of beans. why should a woman have to "wait" until she is married, or
> even
> > > get married at all, to enjoy sex?
> >
> > Fornication is a sin.
>
> if you subscribe to certain religions. if your religion guides your
sexual
> practices, that's great for you. it'll serve as your guide to what is
> acceptable to you. but that doesn't apply to everyone.

You're right, but you were asking why I thought they should wait until
they're married. I think people generally have the right to have consensual
sex when they want to, but I think that several religions have that rule for
a reason, mostly because of the trouble it causes when a baby is conceived
without the support network there.

> > >having sex out of wedlock doesn't make
> > > someone a slut.
> >
> > You're right, if they're not promiscuous. Unfortunately I think a lot of
> > these kids are promiscuous.
>
> i think it's partially because sex is treated as such a taboo thing, and
no
> one's teaching them enough about it. if it seems really normal, and you
> remind them that their parents do it (which would make them want to become
> nuns, i'm sure), and you demystify and de-cool it, and teach folks to do
it
> when they're truly ready and in a way that respects themselves, there'd be
> less of that happening. good sex ed.

lol. Yeah, well I have some mixed feelings here. On the one hand, if you
treat it like the "forbidden fruit" then they're going to want to go have
sex just out of curiousity, but on the other hand, I do think that the
dangers, and the risks, need to be made very clear. I agree with you that
better education needs to happen.

> > > marriage isn't the damned 'be all and end all,' and women
> > > are entirely able to have responsible, safe, 'consenting adult' sex
> > without
> > > a marriage certificate.
> >
> > Sure they can. That's their legal right, but I don't think they have a
> right
> > to kill a baby.
> >
> kill a baby, no. but we're talking about a fetus here.

A fetus is a medical term for a developing baby. Even early on it develops
arms, legs, heart, brain, etc.

-Rubystars

....
>
> Yeah. You'd think they could at least go get some condoms. They're *not*
> hard to come by. They're at every grocery store and drug store, and most
> convenience stores. They're not prohibitively expensive either.
>
on the condoms note, some self-righteous store clerks won't sell them to
young people. which is totally irresponsible. as if it's not intimidating
enough to buy condoms. when you're a teenager, clerks really give you
'looks,' and it's really embarassing, especially if you're a girl (whereas
every guy is supposed to have that ancient condom stowed in his wallet).
and i completely don't trust condoms. plus, they don't prevent all stds,
although i would certainly hope that teenagers wouldn't have racked up too
many by such a young age! ick. but yeah, even in a secure, long-term
relationship, i am so NOT going to get knocked up, i'm all about
double-bagging. i really think that's something that should be instilled in
kids, over and above the no-glove, no love thing, which is good, but doesn't
quite go far enough. condoms break, or leak, or whatnot. and people seem
to think that you won't get knocked up if you're on the pill, but they don't
realize that the 99.6% effectiveness is based on PERFECT use. and who
manages to use them perfectly? i wouldn't want to be one of the 4/1000 that
winds up with a kid even with perfect use. so you've really got to mix at
least 2 kinds of b.c., which can be pretty hard if you've got allergies.
(i'm allergic to both latex and nonoxynol-9...that sure wasn't fun to find
out!) can't wait for the male pill to come out. that'll be a huge bonus to
monogamous couples who are disease free and hate rubbers (doesn't everyone!)
at this point, i'm even thinking about something permanent, because b.c.
pills are so evil. but even the permanent stuff isn't 100% guaranteed.
vasectomies and tubals can fail, or spontaneously heal and whatnot. that
sure would suck! what we really need is an on/off switch for the
fertility...*sigh*...
....

"katie" > wrote in message
et.cable.rogers.com...
> ...
> >
> > Yeah. You'd think they could at least go get some condoms. They're *not*
> > hard to come by. They're at every grocery store and drug store, and most
> > convenience stores. They're not prohibitively expensive either.
> >
> on the condoms note, some self-righteous store clerks won't sell them to
> young people.

That's stupid. They're the main ones who need them.

>which is totally irresponsible. as if it's not intimidating
> enough to buy condoms.

lol. I was working at Kroger one night and this guy comes in to buy condoms.
He looked like he was in his early 20s. He didn't want to hand them to me (I
guess he was kind of embarassed) so he threw them down across the register,
which caused a "beep". I picked them up to hand them to the sacker, and as I
picked them up, it scanned them again. I hit the void button to void the
second time off, but the void limit was set ridiculously low, so I had to
call a manager to unlock it.

She comes over and I tell her that I scanned something twice and I needed
her to unlock the keyboard so I could go ahead and have him pay for it.

She says "What did he buy?" I tried to spare him some of his dignity and I
said: "Something from the drug area". "Yeah," she said "but what did he
buy?" So I had to say condoms, and the guy's face was bright red. So the
keyboard stuff gets taken care of and he pays for it, and by that time he
seems to be happy (I think he was happy to get out of there). And as the
sacker hands the plastic bag to him with the condom box inside she says
"Have a good night!" The guy just grinned then and said "Oh I will!"

He didn't have to be so embarassed, anyway. There's nothing to be ashamed
of. Buying condoms is the *responsible* thing to do, and everyone knows
people have sex anyway. Was he embarassed about having sex? lol

> when you're a teenager, clerks really give you
> 'looks,' and it's really embarassing, especially if you're a girl (whereas
> every guy is supposed to have that ancient condom stowed in his wallet).

That's dumb. The teenagers need it more than anyone else.

> and i completely don't trust condoms.

You can't completely trust them, that's why girls need to be using
contraceptives too. That way either method should make up for the failure
rate of the other when it comes to preventing pregnancy. One or the other
though should protect most of the time, and condoms are very easy to get a
hold of.

>plus, they don't prevent all stds,

True.

> although i would certainly hope that teenagers wouldn't have racked up too
> many by such a young age! ick.

It depends on how promiscuous they are, or how promiscuous their partner is.

>but yeah, even in a secure, long-term
> relationship, i am so NOT going to get knocked up, i'm all about
> double-bagging. i really think that's something that should be instilled
in
> kids, over and above the no-glove, no love thing, which is good, but
doesn't
> quite go far enough. condoms break, or leak, or whatnot. and people seem
> to think that you won't get knocked up if you're on the pill, but they
don't
> realize that the 99.6% effectiveness is based on PERFECT use. and who
> manages to use them perfectly? i wouldn't want to be one of the 4/1000
that
> winds up with a kid even with perfect use. so you've really got to mix at
> least 2 kinds of b.c., which can be pretty hard if you've got allergies.

Most people don't have allergies though, but I agree, two methods are better
than one.

> (i'm allergic to both latex and nonoxynol-9...that sure wasn't fun to find
> out!) can't wait for the male pill to come out. that'll be a huge bonus
to
> monogamous couples who are disease free and hate rubbers (doesn't
everyone!)
> at this point, i'm even thinking about something permanent, because b.c.
> pills are so evil. but even the permanent stuff isn't 100% guaranteed.

Well be careful with the permanent stuff. Just in case you change your mind
later. And you have to be careful with anything having to do with the
fallopian tubes being damaged because you could be at risk for an ectopic,
which could be lethal if it's not removed (that's one of the few cases where
I completely support abortion).

> vasectomies and tubals can fail, or spontaneously heal and whatnot. that
> sure would suck!

Yeah it would.

>what we really need is an on/off switch for the
> fertility...*sigh*...

That would be great!

-Rubystars

katie > wrote in message
et.cable.rogers.com...
> ...
> >
> > Yeah. You'd think they could at least go get some condoms. They're *not*
> > hard to come by.

They're too easy to come *in* though, if you're not careful!

They're at every grocery store and drug store, and most
> > convenience stores. They're not prohibitively expensive either.
> >
> on the condoms note, some self-righteous store clerks won't sell them to
> young people. which is totally irresponsible. as if it's not
intimidating
> enough to buy condoms. when you're a teenager, clerks really give you
> 'looks,' and it's really embarassing, especially if you're a girl (whereas
> every guy is supposed to have that ancient condom stowed in his wallet).
> and i completely don't trust condoms. plus, they don't prevent all stds,
> although i would certainly hope that teenagers wouldn't have racked up too
> many by such a young age! ick. but yeah, even in a secure, long-term
> relationship, i am so NOT going to get knocked up, i'm all about
> double-bagging. i really think that's something that should be instilled
in
> kids, over and above the no-glove, no love thing, which is good, but
doesn't
> quite go far enough. condoms break, or leak, or whatnot. and people seem
> to think that you won't get knocked up if you're on the pill, but they
don't
> realize that the 99.6% effectiveness is based on PERFECT use. and who
> manages to use them perfectly? i wouldn't want to be one of the 4/1000
that
> winds up with a kid even with perfect use. so you've really got to mix at
> least 2 kinds of b.c., which can be pretty hard if you've got allergies.
> (i'm allergic to both latex and nonoxynol-9...that sure wasn't fun to find
> out!) can't wait for the male pill to come out. that'll be a huge bonus
to
> monogamous couples who are disease free and hate rubbers (doesn't
everyone!)
> at this point, i'm even thinking about something permanent, because b.c.
> pills are so evil. but even the permanent stuff isn't 100% guaranteed.
> vasectomies and tubals can fail, or spontaneously heal and whatnot. that
> sure would suck! what we really need is an on/off switch for the
> fertility...*sigh*...
> ...
>
>

Cheerful Pickle wrote:
> Hi, gang,
>
> Recently, I heard about someone back east who claimed to be a vegetarian
> because he did not want to cause pain and death to any animals. That
> sounds good. Though I am on a vegan diet for medical reasons, I have
> respect for ethical vegans and other ethical vegetarians.
>
> However, this guy blows my mind with his strange logic. You see he may be
> an ethical vegetarian because he does not want to take a life, but he is
> also a living oxymoron. Tell me something, does this sound like an
> oxymoron to you. He is an ethical vegetarian abortionist. Say what? How
> can one be against killing on ethical grounds, while killing everyday
> himself?
>
>

i dont know but i wouldnt call medical vegans "vegans" for me "vegan"
stands for animal rights

--
.-. "Only wimps use tape backup:
/V\ real men just upload their important stuff
// \\ on ftp, and let the rest of the world mirror it."
/( )\ -- Linus Torvalds, after a hard drive crash
^^-^^

"Marvin Preuss" > wrote in message
...
>
> i dont know but i wouldnt call medical vegans "vegans" for me "vegan"
> stands for animal rights
>
> --

I'm not a medical vegan myself, but if someone is doesn't eat animal
products or dirivatives, doesn't wear animal products, etc then they are
still a vegan regardless of what their reasoning behind it is.

> this thing. I agree with you that someone who really cares about other
> living things will be against abortion (unless it's necessary, like the
> removal of an ectopic).

But since humans are the biggest single cause of net suffering, pollution
and destruction on this planet, less humans = less suffering and waste?

Also, shouldn't a child have a loving biological mother? A mother prepared
to kill her foetus seems like someone who would not be a good mother
otherwise.

John C

John Coleman wrote:

> Also, shouldn't a child have a loving biological mother? A mother prepared
> to kill her foetus seems like someone who would not be a good mother
> otherwise.

Hey, John,

I had a very loving mother and a good life, but not thanks to my biological
mother. I never even laid eyes on her. She gave me up for adoption at
birth. At least this was in the days long before Roe v. Wade. After that
I probably would never have had a chance at life at all.

Who says a loving mother has to be biological? Don't say that to my mother,
who was not biological.


--
Andy Rugg - The Cheerful Pickle
To email me, please remove "postheap" from my email address. Thanks.

Marvin Preuss > wrote in message news:
>
> i dont know but i wouldnt call medical vegans "vegans" for me "vegan"
> stands for animal rights

While I can understand this line of reasoning, especially as regards
the origins of the word "vegan," I find it a tad bit dogmatic and
exclusivist. Since dietary veganism is becoming more and more
commonplace in this day and age, wouldn't it simply be easier for such
people, when asked to describe their dietary stance, to state that
they are "vegans" rather than "non-dairy vegetarians" or some other
such description?

And would not such people, by virtue of their not consuming meat or
dairy products, also be contributing a great deal to the AR cause,
despite the fact that they may not even care about AR in particular?
And what of those who still have leather or wool products, both much
more widely accepted and prevalent than fur? Someone who had previous
spent a great amount of money buying a car with leather seats or a
leather couch, cannot be immediately expected to ditch such items and
allow them to go to waste, even if they have "converted" to AR. Are
they any less vegan than one who has never had such products to begin
with?

From my own understanding, perfection is not possible in such matters,
and by virtue of maintaining a vegan diet, one should also strive to
eliminate all non-dietary animal products from his or her own life, so
long as it is practical and economical to do so. One who has used
leather or wool in the past, for example, may commit themselves to
never buy such products again in the future.

"John Coleman" > wrote in message
news:5Gnlc.5$XC3.2@newsfe6-win...
> > this thing. I agree with you that someone who really cares about other
> > living things will be against abortion (unless it's necessary, like the
> > removal of an ectopic).
>
> But since humans are the biggest single cause of net suffering, pollution
> and destruction on this planet, less humans = less suffering and waste?

I don't agree that we're the biggest single cause of net suffering. What
about bacteria that infect and infest animals and other living things? What
about fleas, mites, ticks, parasitic worms, etc. Those are pretty nasty to
human and non-human alike.

> Also, shouldn't a child have a loving biological mother? A mother prepared
> to kill her foetus seems like someone who would not be a good mother
> otherwise.
>
> John C

They can always give the child to be adopted by a loving family if they
don't want it. There are crisis centers all over the U.S. that help with
just such situations, even specialize in them. If they don't want to raise
them but still want to keep in touch they can always opt for open adoption.

-Rubystars

"Cheerful Pickle" > wrote in message
...
> I have respect for ethical vegans and other ethical vegetarians.
You shouldn't, because the whole "ethical veg*n" issue is a bogus one.
Ethics are idiosyncratic, they are just made up by the individual (or
local group) to suit personal ego issues of the moment. That is, there is
no -objective- set of ethics against which to compare one's own
ethics-of-the-moment. With no objective standard, one set of ethics is as
valid/invalid as any other.
Thus people attaching "ethical" values to diet is idiotic, but useful as
a quack-detector.

Laurie

Laurie wrote:

> Ethics are idiosyncratic, they are just made up by the individual (or
> local group) to suit personal ego issues of the moment. That is, there is
> no -objective- set of ethics against which to compare one's own
> ethics-of-the-moment. With no objective standard, one set of ethics is as
> valid/invalid as any other.

Hi, Laurie,

Does that mean that you reject all ethical standards and conduct? I would
much rather live in a world where people acted according to ethical
standards and principles than in a world where everyone was an unprincipled
scoundrel. You can usually trust someone with a highly developed ethical
code, for instance, more than one who is utterly devoid of all ethical
values. The latter are sometimes called sociopaths. While it is true that
not everyone's ethical standards are in total agreement, there is often a
general agreement between the ethical systems common in most cultures.
That, in itself, should point to the validity of ethics, whether the
ultimate source of all ethics is theology, biochemistry, neurophysiology,
physics or whatever.

Boy, how this thread has taken many unexpected and convoluted turns since my
first posting about three weeks ago.


--
Andy Rugg - The Cheerful Pickle
To email me, please remove "postheap" from my email address. Thanks.

"Cheerful Pickle" > wrote in message
...
> Laurie wrote:
>
> > Ethics are idiosyncratic, they are just made up by the individual (or
> > local group) to suit personal ego issues of the moment. That is, there
is
> > no -objective- set of ethics against which to compare one's own
> > ethics-of-the-moment. With no objective standard, one set of ethics is
as
> > valid/invalid as any other.
>
> Hi, Laurie,
>
> Does that mean that you reject all ethical standards and conduct?
No, it means that people arguing that -their- personal set of ethics is
somehow better/superior than that of others is absurd.
It means that self-deluded "ethical veg*ns" claiming that they are
ethically-superior to meatarians -because- of their dietary/lifestyle
choices does incalculable damage to the veg*n "movement", puts off people
who might otherwise be open to factual information on the compelling
scientific, epidemiological, ecological, and health issues, and it tarnishes
the credibility of all veg*ns, by false association. You will notice that
the psychopathetic meatarian propagandists here falsely claim that ALL
veg*ns are ethically smug and offensive for that reason. dh, for example,
falsely and unethically accuses ME of being an "ethical veg*n" even when I
have written many articles here over several years pointing out the falsity
and absurdity of the "ethical veg*n" argument, my website has over 700
references to the scientific literature, and certainly NO claims as to the
ethical "superiority" of those who pursue a plant-based diet.
Now, local tribes may have agreed-upon ethical standards in such domains
as murder, rape, theft, fraud, assault, etc., and these are fairly obvious
and fairly uniform across the human species, BUT there certainly are no
well-established "ethical" standards regarding diet or clothing, so making
believe that there are is simply stupid and counterproductive.
It is also necessary to remember that these locally-agreed-upon ethical
standards are gleefully abandoned in "service" of a "higher ethical
standard" when it is time to create a war and make money. Thus, murder,
maiming, imprisonment, destruction of property, and, as recently revealed in
the news, torture, is suddenly ethically-acceptable if a country is invading
another in direct violation of its own Constitution for the purpose of
eliminating someone it paints as being unethical. Thus, as I point out
repeatedly, "ethics" are quite flexible depending on the ego trip of the
moment. There are no objective ethical standards.
Now, if one want to believe that they are ethically-superior because of
their life-style choices and keeps that fantasy in their own head so they
can feel better about themselves, I have no issue with that. But when they
claim ethical superiority in *public*, they are an embarrassment to
themselves and the whole veg*n "movement", if such a movement exists.

> ... there is often a
> general agreement between the ethical systems common in most cultures.
Yes, but there is no general agreement, or even acknowledgment, of
established ethical systems regarding diet or clothing. And, most ethical
standards apply specifically to human interaction with other humans, not
human interaction with animals, plants, or the planet that supports us; we
are way too immature as a species to have established general-purpose
ethics. Maybe in a century or two, if we survive that long.
Further, since there are no widely-established ethical standards
regarding diet, it is clear that raising, killing, and eating animals is
ethically-acceptable in the human family, at the present moment. Thus,
claiming otherwise is absurd and counterproductive.

> That, in itself, should point to the validity of ethics, ...
Idiosyncratic ethical systems that can be changed at whim to support
short-term goals are certainly not "valid".
I hope this clears thing up a bit, thanks for your interest. I find it
particularly interesting that the "ethical veg*ns" refuse to discuss these
ethical issues.

Laurie

Laurie wrote:

> It means that self-deluded "ethical veg*ns" claiming that they are
> ethically-superior to meatarians -because- of their dietary/lifestyle
> choices does incalculable damage to the veg*n "movement", puts off people
> who might otherwise be open to factual information on the compelling
> scientific, epidemiological, ecological, and health issues, and it
> tarnishes
> the credibility of all veg*ns, by false association. You will notice that
> the psychopathetic meatarian propagandists here falsely claim that ALL
> veg*ns are ethically smug and offensive for that reason. dh, for example,
> falsely and unethically accuses ME of being an "ethical veg*n" even when I
> have written many articles here over several years pointing out the
> falsity and absurdity of the "ethical veg*n" argument, my website has over
> 700 references to the scientific literature, and certainly NO claims as to
> the ethical "superiority" of those who pursue a plant-based diet.

Hi, Laurie,

Putting it that way, all I can say is a good, old-fashioned "Amen." I was
thinking the other day about "ethical vegetarianism." Actually, when it
comes to being vegetarian for ethical reasons, the motive of the heart is
the overarching concern. People who are "ethical anything" tend to be so
for essentially one of two reasons (or sometimes a combination of the two).
In the Bible, it says, "A wise man is kind to his animals." If that is the
sole motivation for a particular vegetarian, then, praise God, good for
that person. Here is, indeed, an ethical vegetarian.

On the other hand, there are those who adopt what is really a
"pseudo-ethical vegetarian" position, wherein, despite any protestations to
the contrary, their actual motive is NOT being kind to animals, but saying,
"how good and noble I am and how evil and rotten you are." This is, of
course, sick, and an evil in and of itself because it presumes to
artificially inflate one's own ego at the expense of others and builds
walls between people based on arbitrary judgementalism. When I commend an
"ethical vegetarian," I have the former in line. When you critique them,
apparently you have the latter in mind. As in most things in life, there
are probably too few of the former and too many of the latter. We may not
be as far apart in our perspectives as it might appear.

Hang in there. The people you critique appear to be vegetarian hypocrites,
since they profess to do things for a noble reason but actually do so for
purely selfserving reasons. In that, you fall into a long line of those
who boldly speak out against hypocrisy, including Jesus. Just make sure
that your motives are pure, or else you would end up pointing the finger at
yourself and I would not want to see you do that. I mean that as a
friendly warning, not as a critique, since, in what little I have read of
you, I see none of that.

Such hypocrites are in every area of life. We all know of hypocrites in
church. On Sundays I see a few in my church myself. Recently, I heard
even of some homosexual hypocrites who assumed a sickening air of moral
superiority because, unlike straights, they do not contribute to human
overpopulation, as though they chose to be homosexual for that purpose.
Right, sure, if you believe that, can I sell you the Brooklyn Bridge? They
are claiming the moral high road for something in which morality played a
zero role. Of course, to find pure hypocrisy in its ultimate "perfection"
(for lack of a better word), all you have to do is to look no farther than
the leadership of both the Democratic and Republican Parties in the United
States, or similar parties in other countries, such as Britain's Torrey and
Labour Parties.


--
Andy Rugg - The Cheerful Pickle
To email me, please remove "postheap" from my email address. Thanks.